DS Forums

 
 

Some labor party members want basic income introduced


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-09-2016, 18:06
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,071
Encourages work? The point of life isn't to bloody work. My generation potentially has to work until we are 75. Imagine that. Knocking your pan in for the guts of 50 years straight all working. You finally get set free at 75 only to realise you can enjoy the freedom from your wheelchair while you suffer your crippled joints, cancer, diabetes and god knows what else.

Anything that gets people out of the shackles of work is a good thing in my book.
I couldn't agree more.

Some people will always want more. Bigger houses, bigger cars, more holidays etc. They'll always work for that. Good on them if that's what they like. But people should have a choice if they value free time more than what money can buy.

A basic income could give people a choice of the number of hours they work, and give them some security in periods of unemployment or illness without having to suffer the inquisition at the jobcentre.

All parents get child benefit for every child and everyone accepts that. This just means it's a person benefit and you get it all your life.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-09-2016, 18:42
Joe1500
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 578
I couldn't agree more.

Some people will always want more. Bigger houses, bigger cars, more holidays etc. They'll always work for that. Good on them if that's what they like. But people should have a choice if they value free time more than what money can buy.

A basic income could give people a choice of the number of hours they work, and give them some security in periods of unemployment or illness without having to suffer the inquisition at the jobcentre.

All parents get child benefit for every child and everyone accepts that. This just means it's a person benefit and you get it all your life.
Something for nothing then. Great for spongers, not so great for those who need to generate the tax to pay for it.
Joe1500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 18:46
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 15,071
Something for nothing then. Great for spongers, not so great for those who need to generate the tax to pay for it.
Child benefit? It certainly is something for nothing - even the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge get it. (Talking about spongers).
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2016, 22:30
KJ_Red
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 169
A basic income will be instituted within the next few decades, simply because it solves modern capitalism’s most fundamental problem. ie. lack of demand.
KJ_Red is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 08:50
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
This just means it's a person benefit and you get it all your life.
So how is that going to be paid for then? We already have a care crisis and a state pensions crisis where there is insufficient funding for future generations.

And if people don't need to work unless it's to better themselves, then how are employers supposed to fill the lower-paid more mundane/menial jobs that will never be automated (hospitality industries, cleaning, soft fruit picking, call centres to name just a few), never mind the more skilled areas?
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 08:53
MartinP
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: North London, UK
Posts: 28,048
Child benefit? It certainly is something for nothing - even the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge get it. (Talking about spongers).
I have a feeling they have an income over £60k and would not receive child benefit.
MartinP is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 08:56
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
Child benefit? It certainly is something for nothing - even the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge get it. (Talking about spongers).
Irrelevant as not everyone receives it, it does have limitations, and is not for life (with a taxable charge over incomes of £50,000)

And you have to specifically claim child benefit, so it is not a given that all wealthy people are in receipt of it.
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 08:58
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
So how is that going to be paid for then? We already have a care crisis and a state pensions crisis where there is insufficient funding for future generations.
Presumably through more taxation and redistribution. So higher taxes making the UK a less competitive place to do business or a less attractive place to live for those producing wealth.

And if people don't need to work unless it's to better themselves, then how are employers supposed to fill the lower-paid more mundane/menial jobs that will never be automated (hospitality industries, cleaning, soft fruit picking, call centres to name just a few), never mind the more skilled areas?
Because any earned money would be in addition to their basic income and people generally want more money to buy stuff and do stuff.
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 09:04
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698

Because any earned money would be in addition to their basic income and people generally want more money to buy stuff and do stuff.
Apart from those who feel that they don't need tyo work by taking the lower, less skilled jobs that I mentioned.


It's simply a utopian vision that does not translate at all well into practice.
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 09:13
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
Apart from those who feel that they don't need tyo work by taking the lower, less skilled jobs that I mentioned.


It's simply a utopian vision that does not translate at all well into practice.
We already have a welfare system that in theory means that those who do not work get a basic income to live on. So I do not see why it would dramatically increase the number of people who are workshy.

The current system provides less of a financial incentive to work than a system where any earned income is in addition to their basic income because under the current system as they earn income the amount of welfare they receive is reduced so making them less better off through working than if they got retain their welfare with any earned income being in addition to it.
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 09:25
mossy2103
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 68,698
We already have a welfare system that in theory means that those who do not work get a basic income to live on. So I do not see why it would dramatically increase the number of people who are workshy.
I wouldn't want to take a bet on that.

And therein lies the big problem - you are talking about extending the welfare system to somewhere around 44 million adults, for their natural life. And life expectancy is increasing too.
mossy2103 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 09:30
TheEngineer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,523
I first came across a version of this idea nearly 30 years ago.

If we work on the basis that "everyone gets something" from the Government. This could be an amount of money you can earn before you pay tax, unemployment benefit, an old age pension, disability benefit and so on.

All of these cost money to administer and are complex.

So what you do is scrap them all and give everyone the same income. At a simple level, anyone who earns a salary would be no worse off because you get £2,000 a year from the Government instead of being able to earn £10,000 and not pay 20% tax on this amount (I am keeping the figures simple - no NI etc). Every £ you earn would be taxed.

I can see some merit in the argument, especially if you say that all income is taxed at the same rate (be it from investments, pensions, salary etc) and so there is no incentive / way to avoid tax. Anything you earn from any source would be taxed.

There are a number of reasons why it wouldn't work (people on a high level of benefits would lose out) but as I said I can see why it could be made to work.

According to full fact social security and tax credits for 2015/16 were forecast at £231 Billion.

According to the 2011 census there were around 52 million adults in the UK.

A simple division would give each adult £4,442 per year.

With 30 odd million working people in the UK currently - if we assumed 25 million earn £10,000 or above (on average) then scrapping the £10,000 tax free allowance would bring in £2,000 x 25m = £50 Billion. So that would be nearly another £1,000 per year per adult.

With no pensions and one "universal benefit" you would need thousands less civil servants. Even if some of them were redeployed to HMRC to chase tax dodgers then you could end up with a figure of, say, £5,750 per adult per year. The basic state pension is currently £113.90 (£6,204 per year).
TheEngineer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 09:33
Meepers
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,132
Terrible idea. Its a complete disincentive to work and anti everything that a decent society should be about. Why should people who choose to work hard and contribute pay for those who would be able to make a lifestyle decision not. It's a massive attack on working people.
Meepers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 09:35
GreatGodPan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 35,814
Terrible idea. Its a complete disincentive to work and anti everything that a decent society should be about. Why should people who choose to work hard and contribute pay for those who would be able to make a lifestyle decision not. It's a massive attack on working people.
Like many on minimum wage you mean?
GreatGodPan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 09:46
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
I wouldn't want to take a bet on that.
I would. Almost all people in my opinion want more stuff and to do more things which usually costs money. I doubt many people would be content to just live off the basic income and have a basic standard of living. Also I think the stigma of being a parasite living off the state while not contributing anything would remain.
And therein lies the big problem - you are talking about extending the welfare system to somewhere around 44 million adults, for their natural life. And life expectancy is increasing too.
We already have a system of taxation and government spending on welfare and services whereby most of the population are net beneficiaries. The problem is the level of taxation on businesses and on those who are net contributors needs to be competitive otherwise the UK may have difficulty competing and the most highly taxed people might leave. So the percentage of GDP you can take in taxation is limited and state spending money on one thing like basic income means spending less on other things.

The big issue to me is that basic income is usually proposed as a replacement to the current welfare system. When the current welfare system is based on need so is more bespoke. If a basic income system replaced current welfare I would fear that it would either result in those most in need getting less than they currently do or that because basic income is not based on need it would lack public support and the level of basic income would be cut to enable reductions in taxation, so rewarding work and giving less to the scroungers.

I am for universal benefits based on need. That is those who are unable to work get a state supplied income. Not everyone.
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 09:55
Mark_Jones9
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 6,834
Terrible idea. Its a complete disincentive to work
As you view even a state supplied basic income to be a terrible idea because it is a complete disincentive to work..
What about inherited wealth is that a terrible idea too, because it can mean people do not need to work through financial necessity to live.

Why should people who choose to work hard and contribute pay for those who would be able to make a lifestyle decision not. It's a massive attack on working people.
Are you against private ownership of the means of production and housing to rent and the employment of waged labour for profit and the housing of tenants for rent?
Capitalism is by its nature exploitive and parasitic on the workers. We have lots of wealthy people who do not work some of whom probably have never worked.
Mark_Jones9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 10:45
jcafcw
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 9,439
The good thing about money is that is doesn't exist as anything but a notional idea - ie we attach a value to goods and it is up to our judgement about how these things are shared out.

Of course money has been the way of giving power to certain people over other people and it will stay. Basic income will lessen that power and that is why there will be so much resistance to it.

It has to be noted firms are also looking to automate admin jobs with machines capable of reading customer letters and updating the computer system on the back of it. This coupled with self-service means that a lot of admin jobs will go the same way as manufacturing jobs. In the future with a shrinking jobs market and increasing population we are going to radically have to look at how we are going to share out resources in the future.
jcafcw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 11:43
Steve9214
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,547
I first came across a version of this idea nearly 30 years ago.

If we work on the basis that "everyone gets something" from the Government. This could be an amount of money you can earn before you pay tax, unemployment benefit, an old age pension, disability benefit and so on.

All of these cost money to administer and are complex.

So what you do is scrap them all and give everyone the same income. At a simple level, anyone who earns a salary would be no worse off because you get £2,000 a year from the Government instead of being able to earn £10,000 and not pay 20% tax on this amount (I am keeping the figures simple - no NI etc). Every £ you earn would be taxed.

I can see some merit in the argument, especially if you say that all income is taxed at the same rate (be it from investments, pensions, salary etc) and so there is no incentive / way to avoid tax. Anything you earn from any source would be taxed.

There are a number of reasons why it wouldn't work (people on a high level of benefits would lose out) but as I said I can see why it could be made to work.

According to full fact social security and tax credits for 2015/16 were forecast at £231 Billion.

According to the 2011 census there were around 52 million adults in the UK.

A simple division would give each adult £4,442 per year.

With 30 odd million working people in the UK currently - if we assumed 25 million earn £10,000 or above (on average) then scrapping the £10,000 tax free allowance would bring in £2,000 x 25m = £50 Billion. So that would be nearly another £1,000 per year per adult.

With no pensions and one "universal benefit" you would need thousands less civil servants. Even if some of them were redeployed to HMRC to chase tax dodgers then you could end up with a figure of, say, £5,750 per adult per year. The basic state pension is currently £113.90 (£6,204 per year).
Looking at the Neil interview with Bennett - the Greens were proposing £71 weekly for everyone - no tax allownces - no benefits.

So putting the Greens figures (not a good idea but here goes)
£71 a week every week for 52 million adults = £192 billion
Your benefits figure of £231 billion - less the 50 billion from scrapping tax allowances
That comes to £181 billion saving
So we would be 11 billion worse off.

HOWEVER - this also assumes a very Right Wing approach about the £71 a week being ALL anyone gets. No Maternity payments - no special needs - no disability payments

£71 is IT

Would any politician have the balls to look an ex soldier in the eye who has had his arms and legs blown off in Iraq, and tell him he has to live on £71 a week to cover EVERYTHING.

Of course not - so suddenly things that were covered by benefits would get added to the healthcare budget, or forced on local councils etc.

Those proposing this idea do not seem very Right Wing to me, so you can bet the implementation would be all "touchy-feely" and fail dismally to achieve it's goals
Steve9214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 13:43
Jellied Eel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,672
It was set according to cost of living.
This is the real problem. The government's done very little over the last couple of decades to reduce the cost of living. In fact it's often done the opposite.

So this week we had the news of Southern Trains making £100m profit. Yet we were told that privatisation would reduce the cost of the railways. Yet every year we see ticket prices increase and the costs of getting to work increase.

My local bus company's just announced it's latest fare increases. Previously they were blamed on rising fuel costs. Fuel costs have dropped, so that excuse has vanished. Fares naturally have not.

Then we've had falling wholesale energy prices. Again those haven't been passed on to consumers, business or residential. Instead we're regularly told that prices will have to increase to pay for new 'investment'.. Which over the last decade has mostly been on 'renewables', which are the most expensive and least reliable way to generate electricity. They're good for generating subsidies and energy poverty though.

If basic cost of living was reduced, then we'd have less poverty, and dreams like this one might actually get close to affordable. Otherwise, it'd just boost consumer confidence and spending.

Again I think we should base MP's pay on cost of living. If it increases, MPs get a pay cut. If it reduces, they get an increase. This might focus their minds on things that are important to the public.
Jellied Eel is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 14:13
LostFool
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 59,682
With no pensions and one "universal benefit" you would need thousands less civil servants. Even if some of them were redeployed to HMRC to chase tax dodgers then you could end up with a figure of, say, £5,750 per adult per year. The basic state pension is currently £113.90 (£6,204 per year).
How many people could afford to live on £5750 a year without any further benefits? It wouldn't cover the rent for many people . Even £11,500 for a couple with two or three kids isn't a lot.
LostFool is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 14:22
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,224
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7219726.html

Sense is prevailing. Some hope for humanity shines in the distance.
Well of course some Labour voters want free money for doing nothing. The problem is it just encourages the idle to be idle, the stupid to avoid eductation, the people living in the wrong places to stay there, and the better qualified to want to maintain their differentials, or go somewhere else if they are told to pay for it. Either there's more money printed to pay for it, and its eaten by inflation, or no one gets a meaningful sum, or the successful bits of the economy end up supporting the unsuccessful even more.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 14:31
Steve9214
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,547
How many people could afford to live on £5750 a year without any further benefits? It wouldn't cover the rent for many people . Even £11,500 for a couple with two or three kids isn't a lot.
The Greens were proposing £71 a week - which is £3700 per year.

Bearing in mind the Govt Old age pension (as stated above) is 113 per week

Would pensioners be expected to take drop in income ??
Steve9214 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 14:42
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
Many live on £400 a month plus rent paid...As long as they don't need to work to live, success!
The only people living on £400 per month plus rent paid are those who are too sick or disabled to work.
Morlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 14:48
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
It is a gross exaggeration to say that all who got the money would just remain satisfied and live off that - especially as I would expect it to be set nearer the minimum wage - a basic income is NOT a replacement for income.
I expect that it would be set at nearer the current level of unemployment benefit, nowhere near as high as minimum wage.
Morlock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2016, 14:53
Morlock
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,087
All parents get child benefit for every child and everyone accepts that.
Not any more, the Tories introduced means testing for Child Benefit.
Morlock is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 20:08.