Simpler Tax and Benefits System

[Stevenj214]

Proposal:

• Basic Guaranteed Income of £15,000 given to all UK citizens every year.

• Flat Rate Tax of 50% on all income above £15,000.

• Repeal of National Minimum Wage.

• Repeal of all other financial benefits.

What would be the effect of a system like this (or similar - the numbers are a bit of guesswork)? Would it be financially viable?

[Stevenj214]

paulmoonraker said:

It would fail in the UK, given the general attitude across the bulk of society towards working for a living.

The general attitude where the unemployment rate is currently around 8%?

[Stevenj214]

liner33 said:

Stevenj214 said:

The general attitude where the unemployment rate is currently around 8%?

How is that figure calculated??

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18084679

However it's calculated, it's nowhere near a 'general attitude' to not work.

[Stevenj214]

paulmoonraker said:

There are loads of people who earn less than that, but sustain a lifestyle. My betting would be that they would simply not work.

You don't think they would continue to work to earn more, volunteer or go on to study?

Also these people will no longer receive supplementary benefits. They would be responsible for paying rent, council tax, bills, upkeep for children, etc. with no subsidy.

[Stevenj214]

Removing Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit alone would save £16.6bn on payments and £0.8bn on administration.

http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2005-200...

[Stevenj214]

aw51 121565 said:

And what is the percentage of those on "sickness benefit" (sic)? The overall unemployment figures have been, errm, massaged in the past to bring down the unemployment rate, including the exclusion of those "on the sick" from the overall figures

Disability Living Allowance accounts for 5% of the population.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/1...

It costs (or did cost) £12.6bn, along with £0.14bn to administer.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2011-04-28...

Remove the need for people to 'scam' the system to get money and how many of the fraudulent claimants would suddenly find themselves able to work to top up their 'guaranteed basic income'?

How much GP time would this also free up as people no longer need to 'prove' their disability?

Edited by Stevenj214 on Monday 11th June 11:21

[Stevenj214]

V8mate said:

So a large incentive to not work and a large disincentive to work.

Guaranteed Income as a Replacement for the Welfare State said:

• Most of those who remain out of the labour force will be the same people who are out of the labour force under the current system.

*Most of the reductions in work effort will involve fewer hours worked, not fewer people working.
*Most of the people who leave the labour force will be college graduates who take time off between graduation and a permanent job or graduate school.
*The net decrease in work effort will be acceptable.

http://www.fljs.org/uploads/documents/Murray.pdf

[Stevenj214]

V8mate said:

Frankly, I think my wife and I would give up work if you offered us fifteen grand each to stay at home. We're in our 40s, kids have left home; that would bring a sufficiently comfortable lifestyle for the two of us to do sweet FA.

Think how many people earn enough in 1 or 5 years that they could live a sufficiently comfortable lifestyle for the rest of their lives yet continue to work.

I would hazard a guess that many people in a similar situation, with similar intelligence levels to you and your wife, would not do sweet FA.

I would guess:

Part time work
New business venture
Study

Either way, you and your wife's previous jobs would then be available for someone else who does want to work.

[Stevenj214]

Would there be as many teenage pregnancies if young girls knew at age 18, they would receive the guaranteed minimum income?

Again, it would remove the need to 'scam' the system by becoming a sprog factory to receive a free house and benefits.