Basic Income

[Fez909]

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.

Yeah, this is just my take on the idea. That leaflet was the only thing I've seen where someone has attempted to cost it.

Currently the benefits bill is about £200bn and the pension bill is about £80bn? So it's more than double what we pay currently (IF it was £300 a week).

But how much would we gain in lowered crime, increased economic productivity, easing up on public services, etc? Maybe we'd make it up, maybe not. It seems like society would be immeasurably better for it, though.

 

[ChrisFilter]

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.

The policy was a realistic example of the tax structure that would be needed to support this.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

It's a nice idea. I agree with FS though that 'agree in principal' is a nonsense without the numbers. And I working out the numbers is much harder than the tries people have had so far because the knock on effects would be huge.

You can't just assume all other things remain the same and then add up the figures because a globalised economy doesn't work like that. I couldn't begin to work it out but as an example one thing you'd be risking would be a massive collapse of exports due to increased costs. How would that affect the tax base that's paying for this? And what about other taxes - say you need to double your tax income, do you double VAT? Well no because then, even ignoring levels of purchasing, you've caused massive inflation and fucked your figures for what people require to live on.

Seems to me you'd be better off looking at some old-style socialist solutions tbh.

 

[silverfish]

Not trolling. How is it delivered? Cash weekly? Monthly? Lump sum?

If I get it and spunk the lot, does society still have to safety net me?

 

[Fez909]

It's a nice idea. I agree with FS though that 'agree in principal' is a nonsense without the numbers. And I working out the numbers is much harder than the tries people have had so far because the knock on effects would be huge.

You can't just assume all other things remain the same and then add up the figures because a globalised economy doesn't work like that. I couldn't begin to work it out but as an example one thing you'd be risking would be a massive collapse of exports due to increased costs. How would that affect the tax base that's paying for this? And what about other taxes - say you need to double your tax income, do you double VAT? Well no because then, even ignoring levels of purchasing, you've caused massive inflation and fucked your figures for what people require to live on.

Seems to me you'd be better off looking at some old-style socialist solutions tbh.

No, it's a nonsense to say you need the numbers to agree in principle. If you've got the numbers you're not agreeing with the idea, you're agreeing with a specific implementation of it.

Why would exports collapse and prices rise? VAT would be as it is now - it might go up, it might go down. It's not directly related.

Old style socialist solutions? Are you basing this recommendation on their extraordinary worldwide popularity and success?

Basic income was, and could be, supported by capitalists. Friedman and Hayek were for it. So was Keynes.

 

[Fez909]

Not trolling. How is it delivered? Cash weekly? Monthly? Lump sum?

If I get it and spunk the lot, does society still have to safety net me?

No idea. That's hardly a difficult problem to solve though.

This is the safety net. You want a safety net from the safety net?

 

[Mrs Magpie]

This reminds me of a very long running campaign (40 years?).
Wages for Housework

http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/70sfeminism/10404.shtml


eta...41 years...quite chuffed that my guess was so close

 

[ChrisFilter]

No, it's a nonsense to say you need the numbers to agree in principle. If you've got the numbers you're not agreeing with the idea, you're agreeing with a specific implementation of it.

Why would exports collapse and prices rise? VAT would be as it is now - it might go up, it might go down. It's not directly related.

Old style socialist solutions? Are you basing this recommendation on their extraordinary worldwide popularity and success?

Basic income was, and could be, supported by capitalists. Friedman and Hayek were for it. So was Keynes.

But why even discuss it if there's no move to supply even remotely possible ways that this could work?

You might as well propose a system where everyone's a millionaire, there are no taxes and people ride unicorns.

 

[silverfish]

No idea. That's hardly a difficult problem to solve though.

This is the safety net. You want a safety net from the safety net?

Yes, I am a feckless multi substance abusing father of 5 who spunks any cash I get on drugs, the horses and booze

Is society going to draw the line and wash its hands of me and my family

 

[joustmaster]

No, it's a nonsense to say you need the numbers to agree in principle. If you've got the numbers you're not agreeing with the idea, you're agreeing with a specific implementation of it.

I think you do need some sense of the numbers to be able to agree with the principle of it.

 

[weltweit]

This reminds me of a very long running campaign (40 years?).
Wages for Housework
http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/70sfeminism/10404.shtml
eta...41 years...quite chuffed that my guess was so close

I have long thought that housework and full time child rearing / parenting should be paid.
And as I was a full time child rearer for about ten years I want my pay!!

 

[Fez909]

Yes, I am a feckless multi substance abusing father of 5 who spunks any cash I get on drugs, the horses and booze

Is society going to draw the line and wash its hands of me and my family

No, you'll get a basic income just like everybody else.

 

[8115]

Having thought a bit more about this today I think the problem of non-citizens not being entitled to this could be very damaging. If most people get a basic income, jobs available don't so much need to be able to keep someone's head above water financially and this could be a real problem for someone who's not entitled to the basic income. (Not sure who mentioned this on another thread, I do think it could be a big problem though).

 

[silverfish]

No, you'll get a basic income just like everybody else.

but i've spunked it and we are out on the street eating out of bins and getting really sick

 

[Badgers]

but i've spunked it and we are out on the street eating out of bins and getting really sick

Under the BI model you will find food waste to be fresher and of better quality.

 

[Pickman's model]

Under the BI model you will find food waste to be fresher and of better quality.

cigarettes will taste better too.

 

[Fez909]

but i've spunked it and we are out on the street eating out of bins and getting really sick

How do you manage currently?

 

[silverfish]

How do you manage currently?

By playing devils advocate on internet forums

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

How about, for each month worked in the UK you acquire a share of the nations capital? Each month a dividend is paid out on those shares. The longer you have worked, the more your share 'portfolio' is worth, and the bigger your monthly income from this is.

 

[DotCommunist]

that fucks the long term ill, mothers and people stuck in shithole towns with no work.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

that fucks the long term ill, mothers and people stuck in shithole towns with no work.

I'm not saying you would have to get rid of support mechanisms for those that can't work. I'm just spunking out mind-splurges.

 

[DotCommunist]

it sort of goes against the basic idea of a citizen wage in that far from providing a notional tax cut at the top and evening things somewhat at the bottom it's going to leave the groups I mentioned still reliant on a safety net hile those aable and in employment will do better thus creating a ghettoising effect between worker and others. not logical captain

 

[DotCommunist]

Yes, I am a feckless multi substance abusing father of 5 who spunks any cash I get on drugs, the horses and booze

Is society going to draw the line and wash its hands of me and my family

what happens now? Does this notional feckless father of five spunk all his dole on the vices? ALL of it? no food, no nappies, no packed lunches, hot water, haircuts etc? I put it to you that his kids would be in care before you can say one forteh nine and a 10 on Billy Tuesday each way.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

If I get it and spunk the lot, does society still have to safety net me?

surely the same question could be asked of current welfare benefits (see the argument re the idea of some electronic version of 'food stamps' so that the "feckless" can't spend their benefits on fags / booze etc)

 

[silverfish]

Don't mention packed lunches

 

[Greebo]

that fucks the long term ill, mothers and people stuck in shithole towns with no work.

And carers, and people too old or disabled (disability doesn't always mean that you are ill, nor is every long term illness a disability) to work.

 

[weltweit]

Thinking aloud, say an employer is paying £12k for a job at the moment. Say, for arguments sake, BI pays the employee £10k anyway, I can see the employer then only offerring an additional £2k for doing his job. The employee would get the same total but the employer would save £10k. I am assuming that would be an unintended consequence.

 

[8115]

Thinking aloud, say an employer is paying £12k for a job at the moment. Say, for arguments sake, BI pays the employee £10k anyway, I can see the employer then only offerring an additional £2k for doing his job. The employee would get the same total but the employer would save £10k. I am assuming that would be an unintended consequence.

I don't now about you but I'd probably stay at home in that case.

 

[Fez909]

I don't now about you but I'd probably stay at home in that case.

So would I, but for those who wouldn't then what of it? The employer makes more money so they can afford to employ more people /cut their prices / make more profit.

Basic Income doesn't mean profits are banned or even that business has to suffer at all.

 

[BigTom]

So would I, but for those who wouldn't then what of it? The employer makes more money so they can afford to employ more people /cut their prices / make more profit.

Basic Income doesn't mean profits are banned or even that business has to suffer at all.

But now you need numbers.

You need to know how many wouldn't work. Too many and you don't have enough people working to tax to pay for BI

If you can't find a way to tax companies properly then it can't work.

You also need to know how companies would split their lowered costs between increased profits, further investment and lowering prices to know the effect on this side of the equation.

In principle, I think that if you can't tax companies properly then BI either can't be paid for or acts as a subsidy to business in much the same way tax credits do, but I'm not sure.

Also, do you have links for hayek supporting BI? I find this hard to believe as he was a total free market person, hated welfare state stuff as far as I know. I'm surprised Friedman did either, surely he'd see this as distorting Labour markets.