Because human nature is what it is, and I don't want to pay taxes so people can sit around smoking tabs and playing video games all day with impunity. It simply isn't right is it?
I couldn't care less what they do as long as it doesn't harm anyone. I enjoy what I do and don't see the work I do as some kind of punishment. You could say I have my dream job (or one of them anyway). I know lots of people who aren't in that position though. Should I expect them to hate every day of their life doing something they hate while I do something I enjoy? Sorry, I can't do that. I'm just not that selfish.
I can guarantee you right now that the jobs they hate doing would be made a lot more enjoyable if employers had to do more to persuade people to do them.
I couldn't care less what they do as long as it doesn't harm anyone. I enjoy what I do and don't see the work I do as some kind of punishment. You could say I have my dream job (or one of them anyway). I know lots of people who aren't in that position though. Should I expect them to hate every day of their life doing something they hate while I do something I enjoy? Sorry, I can't do that. I'm just not that selfish.
I can guarantee you right now that the jobs they hate doing would be made a lot more enjoyable if employers had to do more to persuade people to do them.
Also if you didn't need to do it full time to make ends meet, I would be much happier doing a job I hate three days a week compared to five.
Its very premise is based on the arrogant assumption that it will work because people will go to work and pay for it. What if everybody decided to down tools and say "You know what, I don't think I'll bother with any more of these 6am winter starts, it's the citizen's income for me!"
The whole thing would just collapse. It relies on the fact that some people will be industrious and want more out of life, and just looks to leech from them to prop up the shirkers, with the sweetener that the taxpayers funding it will get a bit back as well.
Sod that!
Our society will collapse anyway if everyone decided to down tools and go live on benefits/savings, it already relies on people being industrious and wanting more out of life. You can easily resign from your job and go on benefits after a while, but few people want that lifestyle because it's actually a pretty bad way to live. You have enough money to survive but not much else, and you have nothing to occupy your time. It's easy to go a little bit mad tbh.
Our society will collapse anyway if everyone decided to down tools and go live on benefits/savings, it already relies on people being industrious and wanting more out of life. You can easily resign from your job and go on benefits after a while, but few people want that lifestyle because it's actually a pretty bad way to live. You have enough money to survive but not much else, and you have nothing to occupy your time. It's easy to go a little bit mad tbh.
That is true, to be honest I have found that all criticisms given so far to this system all although valid equally applies to our current system.
Also if you didn't need to do it full time to make ends meet, I would be much happier doing a job I hate three days a week compared to five.
And it would free up some hours someone else could do. There's also nothing to stop people doing two part time jobs if they wanted to work full time and wanted some variety.
Of course, we'd have to see some serious tax system reform to go along with a basic income. This time we'd have to do the whole thing properly and not create another nice maze for wealthy people to hide money in and poorer people to lose out on if they start working.
And it would free up some hours someone else could do. There's also nothing to stop people doing two part time jobs if they wanted to work full time and wanted some variety.
Of course, we'd have to see some serious tax system reform to go along with a basic income. This time we'd have to do the whole thing properly and not create another nice maze for wealthy people to hide money in and poorer people to lose out on if they start working.
See that blog post I I posted earlier, the guy who wrote it has some good ideas about reforming the tax system, from memory it was only personal tax and not corporation tax but we have to start somewhere.
Our society will collapse anyway if everyone decided to down tools and go live on benefits/savings, it already relies on people being industrious and wanting more out of life. You can easily resign from your job and go on benefits after a while, but few people want that lifestyle because it's actually a pretty bad way to live. You have enough money to survive but not much else, and you have nothing to occupy your time. It's easy to go a little bit mad tbh.
People keep bringing up human nature when they say that people would just sit on their arses all day, but it's actually not true. People actually love doing stuff. Helping other people gives most of us a buzz and we all love creating stuff. Why would games like Minecraft be so popular otherwise?
Most of the people I know who do very little are actually suffering from depression or some other ailment. Oh, or teenagers, but then that's one of the many reasons most people really don't want to be one of those again once we escape the phase.
People keep bringing up human nature when they say that people would just sit on their arses all day, but it's actually not true. People actually love doing stuff. Helping other people gives most of us a buzz and we all love creating stuff. Why would games like Minecraft be so popular otherwise?
Most of the people I know who do very little are actually suffering from depression or some other ailment. Oh, or teenagers, but then that's one of the many reasons most people really don't want to be one of those again once we escape the phase.
No, when I refer to human nature, I am referring to the fact that the UK would not support a system that takes from one demographic to pay another to do nothing unconditionally. I could pretty much guarantee that.
No, when I refer to human nature, I am referring to the fact that the UK would not support a system that takes from one demographic to pay another to do nothing unconditionally. I could pretty much guarantee that.
But... it does already, the current system does exactly that
Its very premise is based on the arrogant assumption that it will work because people will go to work and pay for it. What if everybody decided to down tools and say "You know what, I don't think I'll bother with any more of these 6am winter starts, it's the citizen's income for me!"
I think anyone in their 50s who has paid off their mortgage and who has no dependants may think "I have enough in the bank and I'm not working until 68/69/70*; I'll take the money".
It seems like a stupid idea at first but from what I hear it actually does work in the countries they try it so it should at least be considered and looked at.
I think you need to be a bit specific about which countries these are.
But... it does already, the current system does exactly that
Yes it does. Where does all that rent money go? And I say that as someone who is a landlord (boo, hiss). Just because you can 'do' capitalism doesn't mean you agree with the society it is creating! I certainly would vote for a right-wing party.
I think anyone in their 50s who has paid off their mortgage and who has no dependants may think "I have enough in the bank and I'm not working until 68/69/70*; I'll take the money".
* who can say what the retirement age will be be
I probably would. I expected to retire at 60 until the government changed the retirement age. I have a couple of pensions that aren't enough to retire on yet but with a citizens income I could probably afford to do it.
No, when I refer to human nature, I am referring to the fact that the UK would not support a system that takes from one demographic to pay another to do nothing unconditionally. I could pretty much guarantee that.
But that's what it does right now in all sorts of ways. Your money is taken to fund other people's healthcare, even the healthcare of those who haven't worked a day in their lives. Your hard earned salary is taxed to provide a police force that will serve the public including those who haven't contributed a penny to the state. We clearly accept the principle that the state must provide some basics to people unconditionally, otherwise the fire brigade would ask to see your tax returns before extinguishing the blaze at your house.
Those who don't work already have one, paid for by the hard working, who don't.
What a twisted country.
So the only difference is that the hard working would also now have it? Just like those who don't work and have never contributed a penny to the state have a police force, fire brigade, and healthcare system funded by those who do work, who also have access to those things.
,
SO, I went to Secondary Modern School. Now retired, no debts, own property outright. Smallish private pension. Life is what you make it, the sky is the limit providing your health holds out.
But that's what it does right now in all sorts of ways. Your money is taken to fund other people's healthcare, even the healthcare of those who haven't worked a day in their lives. Your hard earned salary is taxed to provide a police force that will serve the public including those who haven't contributed a penny to the state. We clearly accept the principle that the state must provide some basics to people unconditionally, otherwise the fire brigade would ask to see your tax returns before extinguishing the blaze at your house.
Not really. I accept taxes towards the police and fire services because of the expectation that should I need them, they will respond.
But... it does already, the current system does exactly that
It doesn't, and that is the fundamental difference between what we have now and what you propose, and you keep missing it. As a society we accept that we might have to support people who are unemployed, but that has limits and it is conditional. We accept that we must help and support the disabled who cannot work, that is a given. What we don't particularly accept, even now, is the principle that we should support people of working age who are able-bodied, who don't work because they don't want to.
It doesn't, and that is the fundamental difference between what we have now and what you propose, and you keep missing it. As a society we accept that we might have to support people who are unemployed, but that has limits and it is conditional. We accept that we must help and support the disabled who cannot work, that is a given. What we don't particularly accept, even now, is the principle that we should support people of working age who are able-bodied, who don't work because they don't want to.
we don't accept it but we do allow it . I personally know of six people who do zero work have nothing wrong with them and purely live off the state. yes they are vilified in the press but they are breaking no laws and the state allows them to do it . This is exactly what you said would be a problem in the income system, we have people doing that already.
i've yet to see any criticism of the system that can't equally be applied to our current system on this thread
we don't accept it but we do allow it . I personally know of six people who do zero work have nothing wrong with them and purely live off the state. yes they are vilified in the press but they are breaking no laws and the state allows them to do it . This is exactly what you said would be a problem in the income system, we have people doing that already.
i've yet to see any criticism of the system that can't equally be applied to our current system on this thread
If they do no work, are able bodied and are claiming benefits then their benefits will be conditional.
If they do no work, are able bodied and are claiming benefits then their benefits will be conditional.
yes and They meet the conditions are able to keep the benefits coming indefinitely by doing that. They just see the conditions as a couple of minor hurdles they have to overcome in order to get their money
yes and They meet the conditions are able to keep the benefits coming indefinitely by doing that. They just see the conditions as a couple of minor hurdles they have to overcome in order to get their money
Then some tightening up is required. The failure there is not applying a set of conditions correctly, but the principle still remains. The answer is not to simply shrug shoulders and say "Oh well, we might as well just let them have it as an unconditional income"
You're trying to advocate one system simply because you see similar inadvertent results in the current system due to a lack of will to apply the conditions properly.
Then some tightening up is required. The failure there is not applying a set of conditions correctly, but the principle still remains. The answer is not to simply shrug shoulders and say "Oh well, we might as well just let them have it as an unconditional income"
You're trying to advocate one system simply because you see similar inadvertent results in the current system due to a lack of will to apply the conditions properly.
no you're putting words into my mouth , I am advocating the system since it eliminates many problems with the current system ( such as the unfairness of people getting extra money for doing no work ) and also cuts out a massive chunk of waste in the government infrastructure and at the same time. the problems it does have also exist in our current system so we're not adding additional problems to the system by introducing.
And to be frank the current government attempts to rectify problems with the system are killing people as seen by the recent figures published . I'd rather the current system just be scrapped and replaced with something fairer than filddling around with the edges as they are doing at the moment
no you're putting words into my mouth , I am advocating the system since it eliminates many problems with the current system ( such as the unfairness of people getting extra money for doing no work ) and also cuts out a massive chunk of waste in the government infrastructure and at the same time. the problems it does have also exist in our current system so we're not adding additional problems to the system by introducing.
And to be frank the current government attempts to rectify problems with the system are killing people as seen by the recent figures published . I'd rather the current system just be scrapped and replaced with something fairer than filddling around with the edges as they are doing at the moment
A citizen's income is not a fairer system, and it isn't going to happen. It is just a socialist pipe-dream.
Comments
I couldn't care less what they do as long as it doesn't harm anyone. I enjoy what I do and don't see the work I do as some kind of punishment. You could say I have my dream job (or one of them anyway). I know lots of people who aren't in that position though. Should I expect them to hate every day of their life doing something they hate while I do something I enjoy? Sorry, I can't do that. I'm just not that selfish.
I can guarantee you right now that the jobs they hate doing would be made a lot more enjoyable if employers had to do more to persuade people to do them.
Also if you didn't need to do it full time to make ends meet, I would be much happier doing a job I hate three days a week compared to five.
Our society will collapse anyway if everyone decided to down tools and go live on benefits/savings, it already relies on people being industrious and wanting more out of life. You can easily resign from your job and go on benefits after a while, but few people want that lifestyle because it's actually a pretty bad way to live. You have enough money to survive but not much else, and you have nothing to occupy your time. It's easy to go a little bit mad tbh.
That is true, to be honest I have found that all criticisms given so far to this system all although valid equally applies to our current system.
And it would free up some hours someone else could do. There's also nothing to stop people doing two part time jobs if they wanted to work full time and wanted some variety.
Of course, we'd have to see some serious tax system reform to go along with a basic income. This time we'd have to do the whole thing properly and not create another nice maze for wealthy people to hide money in and poorer people to lose out on if they start working.
See that blog post I I posted earlier, the guy who wrote it has some good ideas about reforming the tax system, from memory it was only personal tax and not corporation tax but we have to start somewhere.
People keep bringing up human nature when they say that people would just sit on their arses all day, but it's actually not true. People actually love doing stuff. Helping other people gives most of us a buzz and we all love creating stuff. Why would games like Minecraft be so popular otherwise?
Most of the people I know who do very little are actually suffering from depression or some other ailment. Oh, or teenagers, but then that's one of the many reasons most people really don't want to be one of those again once we escape the phase.
No, when I refer to human nature, I am referring to the fact that the UK would not support a system that takes from one demographic to pay another to do nothing unconditionally. I could pretty much guarantee that.
But... it does already, the current system does exactly that
* who can say what the retirement age will be be
Yes it does. Where does all that rent money go? And I say that as someone who is a landlord (boo, hiss). Just because you can 'do' capitalism doesn't mean you agree with the society it is creating! I certainly would vote for a right-wing party.
I probably would. I expected to retire at 60 until the government changed the retirement age. I have a couple of pensions that aren't enough to retire on yet but with a citizens income I could probably afford to do it.
I'll be mortgage free soon.
But that's what it does right now in all sorts of ways. Your money is taken to fund other people's healthcare, even the healthcare of those who haven't worked a day in their lives. Your hard earned salary is taxed to provide a police force that will serve the public including those who haven't contributed a penny to the state. We clearly accept the principle that the state must provide some basics to people unconditionally, otherwise the fire brigade would ask to see your tax returns before extinguishing the blaze at your house.
What a twisted country.
So the only difference is that the hard working would also now have it? Just like those who don't work and have never contributed a penny to the state have a police force, fire brigade, and healthcare system funded by those who do work, who also have access to those things.
,
SO, I went to Secondary Modern School. Now retired, no debts, own property outright. Smallish private pension. Life is what you make it, the sky is the limit providing your health holds out.
Not really. I accept taxes towards the police and fire services because of the expectation that should I need them, they will respond.
It doesn't, and that is the fundamental difference between what we have now and what you propose, and you keep missing it. As a society we accept that we might have to support people who are unemployed, but that has limits and it is conditional. We accept that we must help and support the disabled who cannot work, that is a given. What we don't particularly accept, even now, is the principle that we should support people of working age who are able-bodied, who don't work because they don't want to.
we don't accept it but we do allow it . I personally know of six people who do zero work have nothing wrong with them and purely live off the state. yes they are vilified in the press but they are breaking no laws and the state allows them to do it . This is exactly what you said would be a problem in the income system, we have people doing that already.
i've yet to see any criticism of the system that can't equally be applied to our current system on this thread
If they do no work, are able bodied and are claiming benefits then their benefits will be conditional.
yes and They meet the conditions are able to keep the benefits coming indefinitely by doing that. They just see the conditions as a couple of minor hurdles they have to overcome in order to get their money
Then some tightening up is required. The failure there is not applying a set of conditions correctly, but the principle still remains. The answer is not to simply shrug shoulders and say "Oh well, we might as well just let them have it as an unconditional income"
You're trying to advocate one system simply because you see similar inadvertent results in the current system due to a lack of will to apply the conditions properly.
no you're putting words into my mouth , I am advocating the system since it eliminates many problems with the current system ( such as the unfairness of people getting extra money for doing no work ) and also cuts out a massive chunk of waste in the government infrastructure and at the same time. the problems it does have also exist in our current system so we're not adding additional problems to the system by introducing.
And to be frank the current government attempts to rectify problems with the system are killing people as seen by the recent figures published . I'd rather the current system just be scrapped and replaced with something fairer than filddling around with the edges as they are doing at the moment
A citizen's income is not a fairer system, and it isn't going to happen. It is just a socialist pipe-dream.