|
||||||||
Some labor party members want basic income introduced |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 5,654
|
Some labor party members want basic income introduced
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7219726.html
Sense is prevailing. Some hope for humanity shines in the distance. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,774
|
IMHO it's likely to be required at some point in the future, if automation results in mass unemployment. I don't think we're quite ready for it yet, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,488
|
Quote:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7219726.html
Sense is prevailing. Some hope for humanity shines in the distance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,050
|
It's a decent idea that could be very difficult to implement. We could make a start though, free child care for all would go a long way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,697
|
For a country the size of GB, this seems like another utopian vision that will cost much more than it will save.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
|
Seems very naive.
Also Labour did this the last time they were in power and it didn't make people more likely to vote Labour. It turns out that human societies don't embrace the "free money" concept. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,965
|
As ever funding this idea is the main issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,697
|
Quote:
As ever funding this idea is the main issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,965
|
Quote:
In the Land of Corbyn, funding is simply an irritating side issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,726
|
Quote:
IMHO it's likely to be required at some point in the future, if automation results in mass unemployment. I don't think we're quite ready for it yet, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,048
|
A terrible idea.
Can those who think otherwise explain the incentive to actually work if a basic income is introduced? Because for many, there wont be one. Also, who will be paying for it, and how? Take your time and think this one through, because its a dreadful idea. Theres a reason the Swiss laughed at it. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
|
Great news, I don't work but I will get a windfall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Bored with Digital Spy Yawn
Posts: 3,676
|
Quote:
Great news, I don't work but I will get a windfall.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,840
|
It will (hopefully) happen, but not for 30 years or so.
We're already in a situation where millions of people can't earn enough for a basic living without state support.. As the poster said above, the changes in our economy over the next few decades will mean that low skilled labour is worth less and less in an economy that is able to produce more and more through automation. Sure there will be a focus on making sure that everyone is highly skills but there will always be a stage where they are learning or in-between jobs, or maybe have health issues which mean they can't work. Rather than having an highly complex system of state subsidies, it will just make sense to give everyone the basic income they need to live and then reclaim it from those in work through tax. Obviously the big worry will be that it will reduce incentives to work - you'll have millions of people living like they're in an episode of 'Him and Her'. But I would argue that most people who are determined to not work can already play the current system to achieve that. And once there is no threat of losing benefits when you work you might find that idleness actually falls. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,840
|
Just to add to ^^^^
Before this happens there would need to be some fundamental changes in the housing market in the UK to bring down costs to a more manageable and consistent level. At the moment you would need to give a couple in Berkshire £10,000 a year just to pay the rent/mortgage - probably £15,000 in London. But maybe only £5,000 in north Wales. As the poster put above, if you already owned your own place then the additional money you would receive would really limit the incentive to work. One thing you have to bare in mind is that this really will only work once the amount needed for a basic standard of living is a much smaller percentage of GDP per capita. I would save that less than 25% - so if the basic income was £15,000 a year then GDP per capita would need to be £60,000. |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 24,726
|
Quote:
A terrible idea.
Can those who think otherwise explain the incentive to actually work if a basic income is introduced? Because for many, there wont be one. Quote:
Also, who will be paying for it, and how? Take your time and think this one through, because its a dreadful idea.
Those times it has been tried - it has ended up paying for itself.Quote:
Theres a reason the Swiss laughed at it.
It was set too high.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
|
The common view:
"This will probably happen when middle-class jobs also get replaced by machinery..." However aren't most middle-class jobs of less economic value than working class jobs? What value is in middle-management? Zero. It's just a made-up job that pays higher. These middle-class non-jobs are paid for by the exploitation of people at a lower social level, people who do the actual work that creates the actual wealth. Of course there is a class of higher-level middle-class jobs that do have value, but they are few in number. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GL51 0EX
Posts: 14,085
|
Quote:
It was set too high.
Unsurprisingly with unemployment figures around 140,000 they managed to get 130,000 signatures - so it was put to the public vote. Then by a margin of 3 to 1 public then told them to get a job
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,048
|
Quote:
Simples - it is set at a basic level, enough to live on, or at least get you started - it would not be enough long term.
Those times it has been tried - it has ended up paying for itself. It was set too high. when has it been tried? A quick check shows social security schemes in various countries but no guaranteed basic income without any set conditions. It was set according to cost of living. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South
Posts: 10,840
|
Quote:
The common view:
"This will probably happen when middle-class jobs also get replaced by machinery..." However aren't most middle-class jobs of less economic value than working class jobs? What value is in middle-management? Zero. It's just a made-up job that pays higher. These middle-class non-jobs are paid for by the exploitation of people at a lower social level, people who do the actual work that creates the actual wealth. Of course there is a class of higher-level middle-class jobs that do have value, but they are few in number. Why would a company who's sole goal is to make as much profit as possible continue to hire people who have no 'economic value'? I would describe middle management like this. Imagine 100 people digging for gold with no organization and no idea where it is. Now imagine 99 people digging and one guy with a map who tells everyone where to dig. Which of those two scenarios is most likely to result in more gold? Which person is adding the highest amount of value? |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
|
Quote:
That's completely untrue.
Why would a company who's sole goal is to make as much profit as possible continue to hire people who have no 'economic value'? I would describe middle management like this. Imagine 100 people digging for gold with no organization and no idea where it is. Now imagine 99 people digging and one guy with a map who tells everyone where to dig. Which of those two scenarios is most likely to result in more gold? Which person is adding the highest amount of value? It's probably more apparent in the civil service, but private firms have it as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11,488
|
Quote:
It's not rational, but there it is. Most management jobs add no value.
It's probably more apparent in the civil service, but private firms have it as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 97,109
|
Quote:
I do work at present but would give up tomorrow. Own my own place so without accommodation costs should be quids in.
Lucky us. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 24,400
|
Additionally, there is something very "Old Labour" in the basic income concept because it tends to pull everyone down to a common level.
Everyone but the elite, who become even more elite. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,048
|
the companies exist for profit line.
Where will it come from? without a working population, who will be buying anything? See, this line doesnt work in this particular scenario. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23.


