I just don't see the sense in spending billions giving a £71 (why not £70 or £75?) to everyone in the country regardless of whether they need it or not.
No, it's not ludicrous, it's a radical idea worth thinking about. It gets rid of the benefits trap for a start, puts everyone on the same footing, and takes all the bureaucracy out of claiming benefits.
What would you do if you won £70m on the lottery? Give a pound to every man, woman and child in the UK?
I'd make sure I never have to work again, and then work towards figuring out how our brains create us.
Because it seems that until we can all unite behind one truth of life, we'll always be fighting rather than making the world a peaceful place to live in.
Will this be the green economics that came up short by about 250bn or so?
Whether Brillo is an establishment lackie or not is irrelevant. He can add up.
Ethics don't pay the bills
Its capitalism that makes so sbarply neccesary a choice between ethics and "paying the bills" .Your kinda admitting that capitalism makes decent human morality very difficult if not impossible.
Surely theres something wrong with that state of affairs?
I just don't see the sense in spending billions giving a £71 (why not £70 or £75?) to everyone in the country regardless of whether they need it or not. I wouldn't say no to a £71 a week pay rise but I don't see why it should come from the taxpayer.
I would just love to see the back of the envelope where these numbers were worked out. What's the point in giving people more money if they are just going to be taxed more to pay for it? Surely you'd be better off just reducing taxes in the first place. If the government really did have a £100bn spare then wouldn't it be better directing that money to people who really are in need rather than giving it to people on middle incomes so that they can stick in their pension, pay for their holidays or buy a faster car? Then again, knowing the Greens there would be limits on what I could spend it on.
They also mention “personally satisfying and socially useful work” when those two things aren't necessarily the same thing. Many things which are personally satisfying aren't socially useful and vice-versa.
Welfare bill + tax lost through use of personal allowances + VAT from increased spending by low earners + bureaucratic costs of calculating all that crap = cost of citizens allowance.
Welfare bill + tax lost through use of personal allowances + VAT from increased spending by low earners + bureaucratic costs of calculating all that crap = cost of citizens allowance.
Yes, it's just a different (and perhaps more efficient) way of giving people what they need to live on.
Welfare bill + tax lost through use of personal allowances + VAT from increased spending by low earners + bureaucratic costs of calculating all that crap = cost of citizens allowance.
Even if that calculation is true (which I doubt - giving an unemployed person £71 a week won't eliminate their need for other benefits), it still doesn't explain why you think it's a good use of taxpayers money to give someone on middle earnings, say £50-60k, an extra £71 a week pocket money?
I haven't seen any restrictions on who gets the money either so you can expect the inevitable Daily Mail headline "Convicted Paedophile spends Citizens Allowance on Porn!"
Even if that calculation is true (which I doubt - giving an unemployed person £71 a week won't eliminate their need for other benefits), it still doesn't explain why you think it's a good use of taxpayers money to give someone on middle earnings, say £50-60k, an extra £71 a week pocket money?
Simple - the state gets it back through increased taxes.
Even if that calculation is true (which I doubt - giving an unemployed person £71 a week won't eliminate their need for other benefits), it still doesn't explain why you think it's a good use of taxpayers money to give someone on middle earnings, say £50-60k, an extra £71 a week pocket money?
I haven't seen any restrictions on who gets the money either so you can expect the inevitable Daily Mail headline "Convicted Paedophile spends Citizens Allowance on Porn!"
They get the £71 but lose a chunk due to the personal allowance being scrapped. In fact if your earning £50-60k ypur probs at the point where you are overall worse off.
Its capitalism that makes so sbarply neccesary a choice between ethics and "paying the bills" .Your kinda admitting that capitalism makes decent human morality very difficult if not impossible.
I think you'll find that immorality has been around a lot longer than capitalism. How do you explain that?
I think you'll find that immorality has been around a lot longer than capitalism. How do you explain that?
I didnt say there was no immorality before capitalism I said capitalism presents us with this stark choice between paying our way with means of money and ethics or morality.There wasnt capitalism before money so the CHOICE cannot precede it.
I didnt say there was no immorality before capitalism I said capitalism presents us with this stark choice between paying our way with means of money and ethics or morality.There wasnt capitalism before money so the CHOICE cannot precede it.
The guy who killed ten rabbits "sold" some to the guy who didn't kill any. Seashells, gold, call it what you like but it was capitalism.
The British army would be replaced with a new “home defence force” and immigration controls dismantled if the Green party wins power in May.
Natalie Bennett, the leader of the Greens, also said illegal migrants would be given the right to stay in the UK. She added that in the longer term she wanted all immigration controls to be taken down.
She also suggested that the Greens would not be illegal for people in the United Kingdom to join terrorist organisations such as al Qaida or Islamic State.
Complete open borders and no professional army and to think people are worried about UKIP.
It will be hilarious to see the Green Party in the TV debates. After watching the Sunday Politics show this morning and their leader trying to answer policy questions, it will be car crash tv.
She said: “We obviously need to defend our own borders, civil defence and we have a real responsibility as a rich country to contribute to UN peacekeeping forces.” Asked if that meant creating a new “home defence force”, she said: “Yes.”
It will be hilarious to see the Green Party in the TV debates. After watching the Sunday Politics show this morning and their leader trying to answer policy questions, it will be car crash tv.
There weren't really any policy questions.
There were two establishment attacks which basically boiled down to
'Can you explain how you would fund the Citizens Income?' asked again and again, even though no other party can explain their funding for policies either.
And
'So you're going to let all the immigrants in to the country and disband the army'
Miss Bennett - but who is the party's candidate for Holborn and St Pancras in May's general election - also said that a Green government would work to “progressively reduce UK immigration controls” over the “medium term”.
She said: “What we want to do now is to allow people who should have the right to be in the country to be in the country. We have to stop the race to the bottom on immigration rhetoric.
“People should have a right to be here which means asylum seekers and refugees – we are not treating them properly and we need to.
Asked if this amounted to an “open door” policy on immigration, she said: “We are looking both in the immediate term, and that will be the policies in the manifesto, the kind of policies I was just talking about.
“And in the longer term, 20 or 30 years hence, we talking about a different kind of society when the world is more equal, more balanced.”
So basically unilaterally let anyone who wants to come here just walk in. Wonder how long British tax payers would be happy to pay for all these new people?
What's really baffling is, how does increasing consumers in a rich country by reducing them in a poor country help the environment? Surely it will mean more pollution and consumption of the worlds resources?
I think you'll find that immorality has been around a lot longer than capitalism. How do you explain that?
But capitalism both encourages and rewards selfishness and a lack of morality. The theory that if everyone acts selfishly the economic GDP measure as a whole will be bigger. To rise to the top of a corporation you have to lack empathy, i.e. have sociopathic tendencies. To create your own successful company you have to be driven, selfish and ruthless. The Secret Millionaire programme would look a little odd otherwise, where a successful businessman isn't taken aback by people on low wages doing good for others because tis no different to what he does in his spare time, and he cant write a cheque for much money because he's alredy a huge philanthropist so doesnt have much spare cash knocking about.
Comments
Because it is OK for the taxpayer to give companies money, but not political parties so they are on an even field.
That is the mentality of capitalists.
What would you do if you won £70m on the lottery? Give a pound to every man, woman and child in the UK?
That woven hemp twin set is capable of walking to the leaders debates on it's own
I'd make sure I never have to work again, and then work towards figuring out how our brains create us.
Because it seems that until we can all unite behind one truth of life, we'll always be fighting rather than making the world a peaceful place to live in.
Its capitalism that makes so sbarply neccesary a choice between ethics and "paying the bills" .Your kinda admitting that capitalism makes decent human morality very difficult if not impossible.
Surely theres something wrong with that state of affairs?
Welfare bill + tax lost through use of personal allowances + VAT from increased spending by low earners + bureaucratic costs of calculating all that crap = cost of citizens allowance.
Yes, it's just a different (and perhaps more efficient) way of giving people what they need to live on.
Even if that calculation is true (which I doubt - giving an unemployed person £71 a week won't eliminate their need for other benefits), it still doesn't explain why you think it's a good use of taxpayers money to give someone on middle earnings, say £50-60k, an extra £71 a week pocket money?
I haven't seen any restrictions on who gets the money either so you can expect the inevitable Daily Mail headline "Convicted Paedophile spends Citizens Allowance on Porn!"
They get the £71 but lose a chunk due to the personal allowance being scrapped. In fact if your earning £50-60k ypur probs at the point where you are overall worse off.
I think you'll find that immorality has been around a lot longer than capitalism. How do you explain that?
I didnt say there was no immorality before capitalism I said capitalism presents us with this stark choice between paying our way with means of money and ethics or morality.There wasnt capitalism before money so the CHOICE cannot precede it.
Yes lets be thankful that a party that wants to have equality and save the world from overexploitation won't get in. rolleyes
The guy who killed ten rabbits "sold" some to the guy who didn't kill any. Seashells, gold, call it what you like but it was capitalism.
No it was barter, or trade if some form of currency was involved. That is not capitalism.
Complete open borders and no professional army and to think people are worried about UKIP.
Putin's invading, don't panic Mr Mainwaring!
There weren't really any policy questions.
There were two establishment attacks which basically boiled down to
'Can you explain how you would fund the Citizens Income?' asked again and again, even though no other party can explain their funding for policies either.
And
'So you're going to let all the immigrants in to the country and disband the army'
Which they are not going to do.
and people can join ISIS
All those mushrooms must addled her brain
So basically unilaterally let anyone who wants to come here just walk in. Wonder how long British tax payers would be happy to pay for all these new people?
What's really baffling is, how does increasing consumers in a rich country by reducing them in a poor country help the environment? Surely it will mean more pollution and consumption of the worlds resources?
But capitalism both encourages and rewards selfishness and a lack of morality. The theory that if everyone acts selfishly the economic GDP measure as a whole will be bigger. To rise to the top of a corporation you have to lack empathy, i.e. have sociopathic tendencies. To create your own successful company you have to be driven, selfish and ruthless. The Secret Millionaire programme would look a little odd otherwise, where a successful businessman isn't taken aback by people on low wages doing good for others because tis no different to what he does in his spare time, and he cant write a cheque for much money because he's alredy a huge philanthropist so doesnt have much spare cash knocking about.