Benefits for all.
Discussion
I've been considering this for a while now. The benefits system is grossly over complicated, can make work uneconomical and acts against seasonal employment (fruit picking, etc).
The solution seems obvious, pay everyone of working age a flat rate of benefits.
Direct taxation could be reduced to a flat rate of income tax. No more playing around on Week 1 (if that still exists) or getting pushed over a threshold by a completion bonus. Basic expenses are covered, but if you want more you have to work for it and any work will reward you.
In my head it's a great idea, why won't it work?
The solution seems obvious, pay everyone of working age a flat rate of benefits.
Direct taxation could be reduced to a flat rate of income tax. No more playing around on Week 1 (if that still exists) or getting pushed over a threshold by a completion bonus. Basic expenses are covered, but if you want more you have to work for it and any work will reward you.
In my head it's a great idea, why won't it work?
Citizen's Income?
Reasonably favoured by libertarian left types, from what I recall.
The main problem I can see is the shortage of housing stock in the UK - give people more money/disposable income (after food/tax/bills) and they will just sink it into outbidding the next Joe along for a house, thus getting nowhere.
It's something I'm quite keen to see a decent both-sides-covered discussion on, actually. Guess this might be it.
Reasonably favoured by libertarian left types, from what I recall.
The main problem I can see is the shortage of housing stock in the UK - give people more money/disposable income (after food/tax/bills) and they will just sink it into outbidding the next Joe along for a house, thus getting nowhere.
It's something I'm quite keen to see a decent both-sides-covered discussion on, actually. Guess this might be it.
Mr POD said:
My wife thinks communism is a great idea. Everyone would get the same pay, but would work to the best of their abilities.
Why would people work to the best of their ability when they know the useless w***r next to them gets the same? Competition and reward for being better, that's what drives people (well, me anyway)...
Jasandjules said:
Mr POD said:
My wife thinks communism is a great idea. Everyone would get the same pay, but would work to the best of their abilities.
Why would people work to the best of their ability when they know the useless w***r next to them gets the same? Competition and reward for being better, that's what drives people (well, me anyway)...
Im generally agaisnt many socialist views, but how about Socilaist textile factories.
instead of the govt paying peolple to sit on the fat arses all day and smoke fags and drink beer on us, the tax paying good folk, they should be made to work in govt financed textile factories. They get paid them same as they do now and their hours can be flexible to be able to look after the mountainous amounts of kids they produce. If they dont turn up, they dont get paid, a bit like the real working folk.
The scratchers who cant do manual labour get office/admin jobs. The revenue that is made goes to pay the labour force.
UK companies who buy the textiles could be tempted by say tax incentives due to the probable higher costs than if they bout them from cheaper asia. Or the textiles could be subsidised when sold.
The best that could happen is, people may get a feeling of pride in having to actually work for their money. They may develop new skills which they could take to a better paid job in the 'real' world...
Mr POD said:
My wife thinks communism is a great idea. Everyone would get the same pay, but would work to the best of their abilities.
So, no PHD graduates allowed to bum around as bog cleaners, and no managers who get there by being bully boys, and no by real leadership.
I think she's mad.
My sister has similar thoughts, I went through my will with her a few months ago, once I'd finished explaining it all to her, sisters first question was "oh arent I in it!" so much for socialist "tax the rich" "distribute wealth" ideals when it could benefit her So, no PHD graduates allowed to bum around as bog cleaners, and no managers who get there by being bully boys, and no by real leadership.
I think she's mad.
Gets my vote.
Have one flat rate that every adult gets.
Have variable benefits only based on need and how much you have paid in.
These replace the current system. All of it.
The results:
everyone gets something
you always get the flat rate
if you pay in you get more out
no more poverty trap, you get it regardless of income.
No more 30 page forms to fill in if you are very ill, disabled or end up skint.
No more endless meetings or extra forms to determine exactly how bad things are for you.
No more making your situation worse to get more benefits
No more bizare rules about your how many nights your GF or BF stays over (live in partners affect benefit entitlement)
No more having kids and relying on the handouts to pay for them, it makes no difference to a flat rate.
It can replace a lot of other benefits (pension, job seekers, incapacity, housing, mobility, sick pay and maternity pay)
If the above happens then employers don't have to worry about the hassle and red tape of materity or pensions ever again.
As every adult gets it university grants are effectively restored
Just make the total budget equal to the current system and see how it goes.
The worst that can happen is that we provide a simpler safety net and encourage self betterment at no extra cost while taking a lot of hassle off employers, reducing the burden on the sick and poor while restoring free education.
I suppose someone will want to carry on racing around in ever decreasing circles trying to target the needy because that's the way its always (NOT) worked. Muppets.
Have one flat rate that every adult gets.
Have variable benefits only based on need and how much you have paid in.
These replace the current system. All of it.
The results:
everyone gets something
you always get the flat rate
if you pay in you get more out
no more poverty trap, you get it regardless of income.
No more 30 page forms to fill in if you are very ill, disabled or end up skint.
No more endless meetings or extra forms to determine exactly how bad things are for you.
No more making your situation worse to get more benefits
No more bizare rules about your how many nights your GF or BF stays over (live in partners affect benefit entitlement)
No more having kids and relying on the handouts to pay for them, it makes no difference to a flat rate.
It can replace a lot of other benefits (pension, job seekers, incapacity, housing, mobility, sick pay and maternity pay)
If the above happens then employers don't have to worry about the hassle and red tape of materity or pensions ever again.
As every adult gets it university grants are effectively restored
Just make the total budget equal to the current system and see how it goes.
The worst that can happen is that we provide a simpler safety net and encourage self betterment at no extra cost while taking a lot of hassle off employers, reducing the burden on the sick and poor while restoring free education.
I suppose someone will want to carry on racing around in ever decreasing circles trying to target the needy because that's the way its always (NOT) worked. Muppets.
Mr POD said:
My wife thinks communism is a great idea. Everyone would get the same pay, but would work to the best of their abilities.
So, no PHD graduates allowed to bum around as bog cleaners, and no managers who get there by being bully boys, and no by real leadership.
I think she's mad.
This is nothing at all to do with communism.So, no PHD graduates allowed to bum around as bog cleaners, and no managers who get there by being bully boys, and no by real leadership.
I think she's mad.
This is about universal benefits which would solve a lot of problems currently caused by our current system. See my above post.
Timberwolf said:
Citizen's Income?
Reasonably favoured by libertarian left types, from what I recall.
The main problem I can see is the shortage of housing stock in the UK - give people more money/disposable income (after food/tax/bills) and they will just sink it into outbidding the next Joe along for a house, thus getting nowhere.
It's something I'm quite keen to see a decent both-sides-covered discussion on, actually. Guess this might be it.
Or perhaps a universal income would:Reasonably favoured by libertarian left types, from what I recall.
The main problem I can see is the shortage of housing stock in the UK - give people more money/disposable income (after food/tax/bills) and they will just sink it into outbidding the next Joe along for a house, thus getting nowhere.
It's something I'm quite keen to see a decent both-sides-covered discussion on, actually. Guess this might be it.
Restore education grants
Replace maternity pay (no more hassle for employers and removes an incentive to discriminate)
Stop the poverty trap
Stop making people getting into bigger trouble relying on the state to bail them out
Need not cost any more, the money is simply distributed in a different way.
No matter what happens in your life you always get something
What exactly is wrong with giving an FTB some help with a deposit? Is this worse than a system that gives more and more to the feckless for digging themselves deeper into the beneift system? Worse than giving free houses to people who have families they cannot support?
See my post above for the rest.
Simpo Two said:
Benefits for all? So of every £100 you earn, £40% goes to the Govt, who waste £30 of it and give you back £10? That's just stupid.
Better to have benefits for nobody. That's the ultimate encouragement to get off your arse and do something.
That's right, you will never be made redundant or be very ill. You will never need to take time off to care for a sick relative. Your kids will never worry about paying to go to Uni. You and your employer just love all the paperwork that goes with the current system.Better to have benefits for nobody. That's the ultimate encouragement to get off your arse and do something.
If we are going to have a benefit system then at least lets have a fair and simple one that doesn't have a built in poverty trap and doesn't demand that you lose everything before giving you a bean and doesen't provide a free ride for life for those who milk the system.
cymtriks said:
What exactly is wrong with giving an FTB some help with a deposit?
Lack of housing supply.If everyone gets some kind of financial help, the price of properties goes up by an equivalent amount because enough people will "stretch" to "get something better" - not realising that if everyone does the same thing at the same time, they all end up with exactly the same property as if none of them had done it.
If it wasn't for demand significantly exceeding supply for the most part (which causes prices to end up stabilising at or around the highest value just one person out of several in the market for that kind of property is willing to pay) then yes, it'd be great. I don't mind the idea, I just wouldn't want money that could be spent on public services or similar getting tied up unnecessarily in bricks and mortar.
Housing is a big thing we need to sort out though, it certainly doesn't help with the benefits trap - see income required to rent/buy equivalents to subsidised council homes in many areas.
Jasandjules said:
Mr POD said:
My wife thinks communism is a great idea. Everyone would get the same pay, but would work to the best of their abilities.
Why would people work to the best of their ability when they know the useless w***r next to them gets the same? Competition and reward for being better, that's what drives people (well, me anyway)...
I personally see both sides to it. Competition is fine, but I'd like a rule that the MD can't earn more than 10 times the salary of the bog cleaner. That way if the MD wants to pay himself £350K he needs to make enough profit to pay the bog cleaner £35K.
The Ben said:
True the benifits system has the wrong name to start with...it should be called "temporary support when you have no where else to turn system"
It should be a safety net not an alternative to working...
The main faults with the current system are:It should be a safety net not an alternative to working...
- horribly bureaucratic (I recently helped an elderly relative with dementia fill in over 80 pages of forms)
- traps people in the system (If you earn you lose benefits so you end up worse off)
- encourages people to become more needy (i.e. having more kids to get a free council house)
- crazy rules (restrictions on voluntary work if unemployed, lose benefits if your BF/GF spends too much time at your place)
Sharing out the current 180 billion benefit budget over 45 billion adults would give 4K each. A couple would get 8K. Even a min wage job on top of that would take them over the poverty line.
In the mean time you get a tax refund, your kids effectively get a uni grant and if you fall ill you won't have to fill in over 80 pages of forms as my relative (see above) did.
An extra top up based on what you pay in as well as on need would be a further improvement IMHO.
cymtriks said:
Sharing out the current 180 billion benefit budget over 45 billion adults would give 4K each. A couple would get 8K. Even a min wage job on top of that would take them over the poverty line.
Have you been drinking? Where do you think this money comes from? You are talking about taking money from someone, just to give less back!This whole scenario is exactly that used to flog Marxism to the stupid for, well, longer than I've been alive. Much to his disgust, as I recall.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff