Universal Income
Discussion
Been discussing this idea with the wife under the guise of 'citizens wage'- the basic premise that it should cover the bare minimum a person needs to live isn't a bad one but it soon gets complicated trying to factor in regional variations, particularly in housing.
IIRC the initial idea is that it should afford one the most basic lifestyle in the cheapest region of the country, any income is a bonus from there in.
As a concept I quite like it - it goes somewhat to redress the balance of "what society is for" away from a vehicle for corporations to make profit to it being a construct for the well-being of everyone.
Clearly the proposition of 800/month is short of that but if it means no complex benefits system then I'm all for it.
IIRC the initial idea is that it should afford one the most basic lifestyle in the cheapest region of the country, any income is a bonus from there in.
As a concept I quite like it - it goes somewhat to redress the balance of "what society is for" away from a vehicle for corporations to make profit to it being a construct for the well-being of everyone.
Clearly the proposition of 800/month is short of that but if it means no complex benefits system then I'm all for it.
Don't these kind of suggestions go hand in hand with removal/adjustment of the tax free bands? So in the UK we get £10600 personal allowance, if you removed about half of that and set a univeral income of 1000GBP then for most people in work it would have a neutral effect.
The advantages are that it would be simpler to implement that the current system of benefits. Plus, there would also be no penalty for moving into work, which is a big issue with our current system.
The disadvantage would be it would take about 20 minutes before someone decided it would be even "fairer" if those on a half decent wage got less univeral income(see tax allowance errosion over £100K) and messed up the simplicity of the system by adding in a load of measures to adjust it according to other income.
The advantages are that it would be simpler to implement that the current system of benefits. Plus, there would also be no penalty for moving into work, which is a big issue with our current system.
The disadvantage would be it would take about 20 minutes before someone decided it would be even "fairer" if those on a half decent wage got less univeral income(see tax allowance errosion over £100K) and messed up the simplicity of the system by adding in a load of measures to adjust it according to other income.
Will never fly in this country.
Right wingers: "NOOOOOOOO we must force everyone to WORK WORK WORK at all times, nobody must be allowed to watch Jeremy Kyle as a lifestyle choice".
Left wingers: "Great idea, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO you must not give it to the RICH, they must be means tested and must PAY PAY PAY more tax instead".
Doomed.
Right wingers: "NOOOOOOOO we must force everyone to WORK WORK WORK at all times, nobody must be allowed to watch Jeremy Kyle as a lifestyle choice".
Left wingers: "Great idea, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO you must not give it to the RICH, they must be means tested and must PAY PAY PAY more tax instead".
Doomed.
blinkythefish said:
Don't these kind of suggestions go hand in hand with removal/adjustment of the tax free bands? So in the UK we get £10600 personal allowance, if you removed about half of that and set a univeral income of 1000GBP then for most people in work it would have a neutral effect.
The advantages are that it would be simpler to implement that the current system of benefits. Plus, there would also be no penalty for moving into work, which is a big issue with our current system.
Yes, I think that is logically how it would work, and the simplicity and incentive to work are the clear benefits.The advantages are that it would be simpler to implement that the current system of benefits. Plus, there would also be no penalty for moving into work, which is a big issue with our current system.
loafer123 said:
blinkythefish said:
Don't these kind of suggestions go hand in hand with removal/adjustment of the tax free bands? So in the UK we get £10600 personal allowance, if you removed about half of that and set a univeral income of 1000GBP then for most people in work it would have a neutral effect.
The advantages are that it would be simpler to implement that the current system of benefits. Plus, there would also be no penalty for moving into work, which is a big issue with our current system.
Yes, I think that is logically how it would work, and the simplicity and incentive to work are the clear benefits.The advantages are that it would be simpler to implement that the current system of benefits. Plus, there would also be no penalty for moving into work, which is a big issue with our current system.
SilverSixer said:
Will never fly in this country.
Right wingers: "NOOOOOOOO we must force everyone to WORK WORK WORK at all times, nobody must be allowed to watch Jeremy Kyle as a lifestyle choice".
Left wingers: "Great idea, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO you must not give it to the RICH, they must be means tested and must PAY PAY PAY more tax instead".
Doomed.
Also yep.Right wingers: "NOOOOOOOO we must force everyone to WORK WORK WORK at all times, nobody must be allowed to watch Jeremy Kyle as a lifestyle choice".
Left wingers: "Great idea, but NOOOOOOOOOOOO you must not give it to the RICH, they must be means tested and must PAY PAY PAY more tax instead".
Doomed.
In principle I'd be all for it because it would remove a portion of society from extreme poverty (only ever a good thing) and would simplify the welfare system massively (saving what I would expect to be £Bs annually). Yes, you'll get the silly buggers who'll receive the payment for watching JK and eating chips however they'll only receive the payment and nothing else whereas everyone who works will receive the payment plus whatever they earn - immediately creating an incentive to work.
The big issue with it is that it'd be unfairly weighted towards someone like my fiancé and I (no dependents and a relatively high combined income) compared with a family of six where both parents work minimum wage jobs.
Unfortunately, as already said, it'll never work here because the Lefties won't want the wealthy to have it and the Righties will only want those who work to have it; meaning you'll still need a welfare system, rendering it ineffective.
The big issue with it is that it'd be unfairly weighted towards someone like my fiancé and I (no dependents and a relatively high combined income) compared with a family of six where both parents work minimum wage jobs.
Unfortunately, as already said, it'll never work here because the Lefties won't want the wealthy to have it and the Righties will only want those who work to have it; meaning you'll still need a welfare system, rendering it ineffective.
Edited by MrBarry123 on Tuesday 8th December 14:18
MrBarry123 said:
The big issue with it is that it'd be unfairly weighted towards someone like my fiancé and I (no dependents and a relatively high combined income) compared with a family of six where both the parents work on minimum wage jobs.
Not your problem is it.Because you shouldn't have kids you can't afford!!!
Edited by xjay1337 on Tuesday 8th December 15:14
it's a nice idea. It pops up every so often as citizens wage, negative income tax or similar.
I think it will never get off the ground because it would remove the need for politicians to engage in their favourite passtime of shuffling an ever more complex array of taxes, benefits and allowances around in the interests of ard working families, small business, big business, the poor, the industrious or whoever is 'in' that election time, and it would also remove the need for the vast bureaucracy to attempt to administer this.
I think it will never get off the ground because it would remove the need for politicians to engage in their favourite passtime of shuffling an ever more complex array of taxes, benefits and allowances around in the interests of ard working families, small business, big business, the poor, the industrious or whoever is 'in' that election time, and it would also remove the need for the vast bureaucracy to attempt to administer this.
How on earth would we as a nation be able to afford this one?
Just did the some maths using salary calculator and assumption that this would mean same tax structure and 0 tax free allowance and £800 a month
14k earner gets extra £7,480.20 a year
44k earner gets extra £5,360
100k and upwards seems to get an extra £4,827 a year
So basically the government gives us all a wad of cash so tax would have to jack up. There'd be some small benefits to offset it but this would cost a fortune to implement.
Just did the some maths using salary calculator and assumption that this would mean same tax structure and 0 tax free allowance and £800 a month
14k earner gets extra £7,480.20 a year
44k earner gets extra £5,360
100k and upwards seems to get an extra £4,827 a year
So basically the government gives us all a wad of cash so tax would have to jack up. There'd be some small benefits to offset it but this would cost a fortune to implement.
Pay people to be poor and you will only have ever more poor people.
A Citizens income is the only way to end the trap of welfare dependency.
It would be expensive and have to be supplemented by state provided accommodation (hostels for single mothers for example) but is the solution IMO.
Costs appear larger than they are as you would of course be removing the personal allowance and most means tested benefits to pay for it.
A Citizens income is the only way to end the trap of welfare dependency.
It would be expensive and have to be supplemented by state provided accommodation (hostels for single mothers for example) but is the solution IMO.
Costs appear larger than they are as you would of course be removing the personal allowance and most means tested benefits to pay for it.
Presumably it would work by increasing the income tax rates to cover it, so low earners receive the money and don't get taxed, while high earners receive the money but pay it back again in tax. In some ways that sounds a bit silly but it makes a lot of sense. The unemployed get a basic living wage, there's incentive for people to get in to work as even a bit of part time work increases your take home without the silly current situation where it someone can end up with less money by working than living on benefits, and the system for regulating it would rely on income taxation that we already have in place. I like it as it seems like a very fair system.
ukbabz said:
How on earth would we as a nation be able to afford this one?
Just did the some maths using salary calculator and assumption that this would mean same tax structure and 0 tax free allowance and £800 a month
14k earner gets extra £7,480.20 a year
44k earner gets extra £5,360
100k and upwards seems to get an extra £4,827 a year
So basically the government gives us all a wad of cash so tax would have to jack up. There'd be some small benefits to offset it but this would cost a fortune to implement.
I believe the proposal is 800 Euros a month which makes it somewhat more affordable and that is not necessarily the bare minimum of income needed to survive. Just did the some maths using salary calculator and assumption that this would mean same tax structure and 0 tax free allowance and £800 a month
14k earner gets extra £7,480.20 a year
44k earner gets extra £5,360
100k and upwards seems to get an extra £4,827 a year
So basically the government gives us all a wad of cash so tax would have to jack up. There'd be some small benefits to offset it but this would cost a fortune to implement.
Lets say for example that there were millions of bedsits built which the government rented out at £60 a week including all bills, you then need a bit of extra money on food on top. The total minimum benefit necessary for life for a single person would be around £400 per single person. A couple would get £800 and be able to afford to share a flat.
If you scrapped tax allowances and most benefits to pay for it you are looking at a system that is expensive but within the realms of possibility.
I've discussed this at length as well, I think there should be means testing for those who cannot work who'll receive extra, the criteria for which should be stringent to avoid scroungers.
Advantages:
- All civil servants who're currently employed shuffling paper can do some real public service
- Fairness and encouragement, if you work you always benefit
- Protection, many people who work hard are reluctant to claim dole money, these people will not have to lose their pride at receiving benefit.
Negatives:
- Tax increases, what salary band becomes cost neutral/worse off compared to the current system? Will the efficiencies mean everyone will benefit? I can't answer this...
Advantages:
- All civil servants who're currently employed shuffling paper can do some real public service
- Fairness and encouragement, if you work you always benefit
- Protection, many people who work hard are reluctant to claim dole money, these people will not have to lose their pride at receiving benefit.
Negatives:
- Tax increases, what salary band becomes cost neutral/worse off compared to the current system? Will the efficiencies mean everyone will benefit? I can't answer this...
ReallyReallyGood said:
I haven't read the details, how does it work? I'm assuming all those in work will not suddenly be 800 euros a month richer, are they taxing those in work, more?
Everybody will get it, they have realised that if they cut bureaucracy the thing the government in the UK loves so much and employs so many people on civil service activity (in other words not actually doing anything) it will be cheaper.http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/12/06...
"The Finnish government is currently drawing up plans to introduce a national basic income. A final proposal won’t be presented until November 2016, but if all goes to schedule, Finland will scrap all existing benefits and instead hand out 800 euros per month—to everyone."
"The Nordic nation is getting closer this month to finalizing a solution to poverty: paying each of its 5.4 million people $876 tax-free a month — and in return, it will do away with welfare benefits, unemployment lines, and the other bureaucracy of its extensive social safety net."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff