Citizen's wage – a proposal

[DotCommunist]

We live in Canada. My parents took all their money when they left. imo - my parents, aunts and uncles are ripping you off

What is "big state"?

did they et a fat paycheck labeled 'here is all your National Insurance Contributions' when they left? No? Then it is what they payed. Big state is high taxation and heavy provision. Cradle to grave.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There are lots of crap jobs which probably would not be done at existing wage levels if a citizen's wage prevailed,

The crap jobs would be done if they needed to be done, and if nobody wanted to do them, the wage would have to increase. I don't agree with this, though – only a small minority will want to not work and live on their £100 per week. That's the premise of the whole idea – both that most people want to work, and that most people don't want to live in relative penury.

That the cw would change the dynamic of employers, forcing them to make their jobs more attractive, is a boon of the idea. But there would be no marginal rate at which working would not pay. Someone working in a cafe for £40 per day would be £24 per day better off.

 

[DotCommunist]

I'd be tempted - you have kids, fancy a bit extra cash?

Is this a come-on? Pics or GTFO

 

[spring-peeper]

 

[weepiper]

The crap jobs would be done if they needed to be done, and if nobody wanted to do them, the wage would have to increase. I don't agree with this, though – only a small minority will want to not work and live on their £100 per week. That's the premise of the whole idea – both that most people want to work, and that most people don't want to live in relative penury.

That the cw would change the dynamic of employers, forcing them to make their jobs more attractive, is a boon of the idea. But there would be no marginal rate at which working would not pay. Someone working in a cafe for £40 per day would be £24 per day better off.

where are these jobs coming from though? Are you saying that most people living on their £60 or whatever it is JSA per week now are doing so because they prefer that to working?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

where are these jobs coming from though? Are you saying that most people living on their £60 or whatever it is JSA per week now are doing so because they prefer that to working?

No, but that is an entirely separate issue. I am saying that most people want to work, especially if it pays them to work, so replacing the dole with a cw would not reduce the number of jobs available.

I have other ideas about how you create enough jobs for everyone who wants one, but I think that would be a separate thread.

 

[spring-peeper]

where are these jobs coming from though? Are you saying that most people living on their £60 or whatever it is JSA per week now are doing so because they prefer that to working?

£60 a week???

I like bioboy's way better - £100 for you and each child you can produce.

 

[Jean-Luc]

The whole idea is never going to work except perhaps as some minor change in "benefits" paid to the poor because, if set at anything much above the poverty level, it would (a) undermine the incentive to work for wages which is the basis of the existing, capitalist economy and (b) involve high taxes on profits which would undermine the capitalist incentive to invest. It's a non-starter.

 

[Wolveryeti]

only a small minority will want to not work and live on their £100 per week.

What about school leavers and recent graduates? 100 quid a week is a pretty nifty sum if you're living in the parental home and don't have bills or rent to pay.

 

[spring-peeper]

did they et a fat paycheck labeled 'here is all your National Insurance Contributions' when they left? No? Then it is what they payed. Big state is high taxation and heavy provision. Cradle to grave.

oh - I understand it, but imo, they shouldn't be getting it because they are not in the country.

Canada provides an adequate pension for them.

Waste of your money, that's all.

 

[DotCommunist]

No, but that is an entirely separate issue. I am saying that most people want to work, especially if it pays them to work, so replacing the dole with a cw would not reduce the number of jobs available.

I have other ideas about how you create enough jobs for everyone who wants one, but I think that would be a separate thread.

No, go on Keynes I'd like to here that idea. Myself I always envisaged the potential for a Roosvelt style new deal workforce but not sure how viable that is.

And for those red haters, roosy was practically running communes for displaced dustbowl refugee farmer families

 

[littlebabyjesus]

it would (a) undermine the incentive to work for wages which is the basis of the existing, capitalist economy.

On the contrary. It would guarantee that there was always an incentive to work. The vast majority of people want to work. This would not lead to millions of people giving up on work to live on their £100 per week. Work isn't just about the money. It provides a focus, friends, a sense of purpose, self-esteem, a reason to get out of bed in the morning.

It would mean that anyone who chose could not work - or at least not work for money. It would allow for a whole underground diy culture to sprout up, punk-style, if people so wished.

 

[DotCommunist]

oh - I understand it, but imo, they shouldn't be getting it because they are not in the country.

Canada provides an adequate pension for them.

Waste of your money, that's all.

They paid into the fund without choice. That is NI. They can still claim from the money that was taken from them out of thier wages when they lived here. I see no beef, really. It is not like you choose to pay NI. It gets taken regardless.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What about school leavers and recent graduates? 100 quid a week is a pretty nifty sum if you're living in the parental home and don't have bills or rent to pay.

They'd soon get pissed off, as would their parents. Most people hate being on the dole long-term. But you do have to allow for the fact that some people will simply be idle, as they are now. I don't see the numbers choosing to be idle increasing from their current levels.

 

[spring-peeper]

They paid into the fund without choice. That is NI. They can still claim from the money that was taken from them out of thier wages when they lived here. I see no beef, really. It is not like you choose to pay NI. It gets taken regardless.

Oh my goodness - NI is National Insurance, not Northern Ireland.

ooops on my previous post.

 

[DotCommunist]

The idea that a hundred quid a week (thirty left after rent and food) would cause hordes of people to sit around cracking one off to Loose Women is a fucking joke btw. I am a lazy prick but I know many who work long hours for shit all and would feel bereft if they did not have an employment of some kind.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, go on Keynes I'd like to here that idea. Myself I always envisaged the potential for a Roosvelt style new deal workforce but not sure how viable that is.

And for those red haters, roosy was practically running communes for displaced dustbowl refugee farmer families

It basically involves the government providing jobs, yes. Changing the system so that the govt guarantees not welfare but real jobs makes the private sector pull its finger out to compete for workers. These would not necessarily be 'capitalist jobs' – govts don't have a great track record with those – but there is a whole raft of things that need doing, or could be done, to improve society. There always is – the system of deciding what needs to be done could be a dynamic, decentralised, democratic one.

People will object that this would be inflationary, but the biggest source of inflationary pressure is the lending of money at interest. That is something that would need to be tackled at the same time, by nationalising the banking system – state-owned banks or mutuals would be the only institutions allowed to lend at interest, and the rates they can set would be strictly limited.

ETA: but that is a derail, I think, and I have a bit of a track-record of derailing my own threads.

 

[spring-peeper]

yeah, sp, that's just a rehash of the 'teenage girls get pregnant just to get a council house' line.

I live in a welfare town - this is how it works.

"Get pregnant!!! It increases your benefits."

Did you know that my daughter is the only one without child amongst her friends? Her and her b/f work minimum wage jobs - saving up for a family. Her friends think that she is deranged - why bother.

That is the reality of living in my little corner of the world. It's nice that England isn't like that.

 

[spring-peeper]

While we are on the subject...

Does anyone else think people should be compensated for the volunteer hours?

 

[Wolveryeti]

People will object that this would be inflationary, but the biggest source of inflationary pressure is the lending of money at interest.

I'd be interested in knowing what basis you have for thinking this, given that lending and debt levels in the UK are very high, but since around 1991 inflation has never strayed much beyond the 2% target set by the BofE.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

edited. Dont' want to derail

 

[Wolveryeti]

The way I understand it, inflation is all about too much demand chasing too little supply.

By introducing a citizen's wage you are creating substantial labour supply disincentives (making staying in the parental home more attractive, permitting people to quit their crappy jobs), whilst creating a substantial upswing in demand (putting money in the pockets of people who previously had much less). Seems like a recipe for galloping inflation to me.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

By introducing a citizen's wage you are providing a strong incentive to employers to clean up their acts, and you are providing a very clear incentive to work by getting rid of the benefits trap. Work will always pay.

Yours is essentially the argument put forward by the Tories against the minimum wage, yet the minimum wage did not cause inflation.

But you have to balance demand and supply, yes. When putting extra cash in the hands of the poor, you also have to prise cash from the hands of the rich if you are to avoid inflationary pressure. At least a small amount of the billions saved on persecuting the poor through the dole office could be put to work ensuring that the rich pay up.


In my experience of crappy jobs, and I've had a lot, it is normally not the work itself that makes the job crappy, but the attitude of the employer. I would turn the whole thing on its head, force employers to show why people should come and work for them.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Yours is essentially the argument put forward by the Tories against the minimum wage, yet the minimum wage did not cause inflation.

But the minimum wage affected about 1.5 million people on its inception - far fewer than the number who would be affected by the CW example you sketch out.

Inflation-wise CW is a gamble, because you'd be placing your hopes in the positive supply-side effects of removing the benefits trap overpowering the supply/demand mismatch which would arise in the short run. I think even more than with minimum wage, how this turns out would be something that would only become apparent ex post.

 

[Jean-Luc]

The vast majority of people want to work. This would not lead to millions of people giving up on work to live on their £100 per week. Work isn't just about the money.

That confirms the point I made:

The whole idea is never going to work except perhaps as some minor change in "benefits" paid to the poor

You're right £100 a week is not enough to retire on (quite apart from its effects on other benefits, as others here having been pointing out). In fact, without housing benefit, it's below the poverty line.

Also, if everyone got paid £100 a week as of right, whether or not they were working, this would be a subsidy to employers to pay lower wages. Why would they pay the same if the State was paying part of their employees income?

 

[Falcon]

We live in Canada. My parents took all their money when they left. imo - my parents, aunts and uncles are ripping you off

What is "big state"?

did they et a fat paycheck labeled 'here is all your National Insurance Contributions' when they left? No? Then it is what they payed. Big state is high taxation and heavy provision. Cradle to grave.

They paid into the fund without choice. That is NI. They can still claim from the money that was taken from them out of thier wages when they lived here. I see no beef, really. It is not like you choose to pay NI. It gets taken regardless.

Couple matters of factual accuracy, Dot, and some consequences:

(1) In our country, you don't save for your own retirement. Our pension system works on the basis that the current working population pays the current retired population. By moving to Canada, spring-peeper's parents stopped contributing to UK pensioners, but are now being supported by todays workers. The value of the NI contributions they did pay before they left bears no relation to the value of the pension they are withdrawing from the system, and spring-peeper is right.

(2) Big State is high borrowing, heavy provision, not high taxation, heavy provision. (It will be helpful to keep that in your mind as we go forward, it's going to explain a lot that is about to happen). There was never a time when there was enough money from the taxes of the workers to fund the pensions of the retired - benefits were too high in relation to taxes. The difference was funded on sovereign debt secured on the expectation of future growth (or, really, just on loans).

Two big problems:

(1) The relative proportion of workers and retired has changed. The big birth rate explosion after the war following by its collapse, and the steadily increasing life expectancy, means that there is nowhere near enough people of working age to pay your pension, even under growth and borrowing conditions of the last decades.

(2) There is no future growth - the supply of petrol isn't big enough any more - and neither the pensions of the future retired, nor the loans taken out to pay those of the current retired, are repayable.

There is no amount of soaking of the rich that alters that (I'm not arguing whether they should or they shouldn't, I'm just pointing out that their entire net worth, even supposing they were liquidated, is not sufficient to make a difference).

I know that some people are no more curious about how these things get done than 8 year old children are about where daddy gets the money to pay pocket money. One hundred years of a rapidly expanding energy supply has enabled that complacency, and it might be tempting to continue to imagine, just like the 8 year old, that "daddy/the big state" can just pay more.

Daddy / "the big state" is bust, and more than financially. It's now "cradle to some-point-short-of-the-grave, and a shortening time thereafter".

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Also, if everyone got paid £100 a week as of right, whether or not they were working, this would be a subsidy to employers to pay lower wages. Why would they pay the same if the State was paying part of their employees income?

Legal obligation, as now. Paying less than the minimum wage is against the law. That is not a valid objection.

I agree that integrating housing benefit into the cw is difficult. As for other benefits, these would not necessarily be fully subsumed by the cw. My proposal is aimed primarily at replacing unemployment benefit.

 

[GoneCoastal]

Question - how would tax deductible items fit in ?
For example pension payments which are not taxed when you contribute ? Would they be discarded the before what's taxable is calculated ? (Or any other deductions like professional fees etc)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Question - how would tax deductible items fit in ?
For example pension payments which are not taxed when you contribute ? Would they be discarded the before what's taxable is calculated ? (Or any other deductions like professional fees etc)

There is no reason why all these things cannot continue as they are. Your tax would be worked out as 40% of earnings - £100. Deductions would simply reduce the earnings to be taxed, as now.

 

[Jean-Luc]

Legal obligation, as now. Paying less than the minimum wage is against the law. That is not a valid objection.

I'm not talking about people on the minimum wage but about people in a job earning above that. If the State paid them all £100 there would be no need for employers to pay so much. So wages would tend to fall by that amount.