Comparing the Welfare States
Discussion
I meant to post this in conjunction with my Blair question but "PH Maintenace Hour" cut me off
This is an essay on the difference (or similarities) between 5 different western nation's welfare systems. It begins about the third paragraph down. I am interested in you all's opinion of this person's take on things.
http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/wsta
>> Edited by jimbeaux on Monday 14th November 20:20
This is an essay on the difference (or similarities) between 5 different western nation's welfare systems. It begins about the third paragraph down. I am interested in you all's opinion of this person's take on things. http://www2.rgu.ac.uk/publicpolicy/introduction/wsta
>> Edited by jimbeaux on Monday 14th November 20:20
I present this to you as a possible future model, and alternative to the linked stuf-
Basic income
It works like this. A fixed benefit is paid to everyone (i.e. citizens*). This should be enough to live on. Above that level of income you pay tax on every penny you get. A further possibility is to combune this with a flat rate tax system so that you only pay one rate of tax.
That leaves us with one rate of benefit payable to all and one rate of tax paid by all.
No more impenetrable benefit and tax systems. Simple and hard to defraud due to that simplicity.
*Citizenship is the defacto situation. You do not need to earn it at first but you will loose it if you abuse it and then you will need to earn it back.
Basic income
It works like this. A fixed benefit is paid to everyone (i.e. citizens*). This should be enough to live on. Above that level of income you pay tax on every penny you get. A further possibility is to combune this with a flat rate tax system so that you only pay one rate of tax.
That leaves us with one rate of benefit payable to all and one rate of tax paid by all.
No more impenetrable benefit and tax systems. Simple and hard to defraud due to that simplicity.
*Citizenship is the defacto situation. You do not need to earn it at first but you will loose it if you abuse it and then you will need to earn it back.
It is an interesting idea, but the trouble is that providing a benefit that is enough to live on to everybody would be ruinously expensive.
One way around this might be to gradually withdraw the benefit as more money is earned, but at a far more gradual rate than now-say for the sake of argument 10p in the pound.
One way around this might be to gradually withdraw the benefit as more money is earned, but at a far more gradual rate than now-say for the sake of argument 10p in the pound.
Jaglover said:
It is an interesting idea, but the trouble is that providing a benefit that is enough to live on to everybody would be ruinously expensive.
I suspect it might well be cheaper than paying all the uncivil disservants necessary to run the current ludicrously complicated tax and benefits systems.
Einion Yrth said:
It is an interesting idea, but the trouble is that providing a benefit that is enough to live on to everybody would be ruinously expensive.
I suspect it might well be cheaper than paying all the uncivil disservants necessary to run the current ludicrously complicated tax and benefits systems.
Jaglover
You pay it anyway to the lower income bits of society! And it is ruinously expensive! The higher income bits of society would just, in effect, be getting their tax back.
Einion Yrth
Exactly.
The Expense would depend on how much was paid over.
How much is enough to live on without working?, A bed-sit for say £350 a month and then living expenses on top, probably at least £8k for each adult in the country, plus some more for any children which would probably need to be at least 4k for each one to compensate for extra food bills and the need for larger living space.
Let's say 45M adults=£360bn
15M children-£60bn
Total cost £420bn
Current social security budget-£126bn (which includes the cost of looking after the disabled)
Don't get me wrong I would be happy to see the current benefits (housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support etc)replaced by a flat rate benefit which would be far simpler, but you would need means testing to restrict the amount paid.
Any withdrawal of benefits should be at a gradual rate so as not to reduce the incentive to work.
How much is enough to live on without working?, A bed-sit for say £350 a month and then living expenses on top, probably at least £8k for each adult in the country, plus some more for any children which would probably need to be at least 4k for each one to compensate for extra food bills and the need for larger living space.
Let's say 45M adults=£360bn
15M children-£60bn
Total cost £420bn
Current social security budget-£126bn (which includes the cost of looking after the disabled)
Don't get me wrong I would be happy to see the current benefits (housing benefit, council tax benefit, income support etc)replaced by a flat rate benefit which would be far simpler, but you would need means testing to restrict the amount paid.
Any withdrawal of benefits should be at a gradual rate so as not to reduce the incentive to work.
From this link
http://budget2005.treasury.gov.uk/page_09.html
social protection 146 bn
there's also housing at 16 bn and personal services at 23 bn
That's 185 bn
Remember that for most tax payers under a basic income system you are effectively getting your tax back. Everyone gets the benefit regardless of how much you earn. Over that benefit everyone pays tax, and I would argue for a flat rate on all income.
I suppose in reality, to avoid having to collect silly levels of tiny quantities of tax a personal allowance would still be needed but this still leaves us with a very simple system.
http://budget2005.treasury.gov.uk/page_09.html
social protection 146 bn
there's also housing at 16 bn and personal services at 23 bn
That's 185 bn
Remember that for most tax payers under a basic income system you are effectively getting your tax back. Everyone gets the benefit regardless of how much you earn. Over that benefit everyone pays tax, and I would argue for a flat rate on all income.
I suppose in reality, to avoid having to collect silly levels of tiny quantities of tax a personal allowance would still be needed but this still leaves us with a very simple system.
Well I never that's quite an increase on 2003/04.
You are correct that some of the money spent on a universal benefit could be clawed back by abolishing the personal allowance.
Another thing to bear in mind, the figures you show do I believe include the cost of SERPS, maternity leave and the aforementioned carer's allowance for the disabled.
You are correct that some of the money spent on a universal benefit could be clawed back by abolishing the personal allowance.
Another thing to bear in mind, the figures you show do I believe include the cost of SERPS, maternity leave and the aforementioned carer's allowance for the disabled.
cymtriks said:
From this link
http://budget2005.treasury.gov.uk/page_09.html
Hmmmmm income £487bn, expenditure £519bn deficit £32bn.
BUT predicted expenditure for 2007/8 is £580bn. That means just to start balancing the books el Gordon needs to get another £90bn p.a. or so from somewhere.
Cymtriks's idea is great apart from the traffic wardens.
At present, people become traffic wardens because they can't find anything better to do, nad the job then turns them bad. Without the economic need to be a traffic warden, the only people going for the job would be those who are little Hitlers to begin with and would actively enjoy it.
At present, people become traffic wardens because they can't find anything better to do, nad the job then turns them bad. Without the economic need to be a traffic warden, the only people going for the job would be those who are little Hitlers to begin with and would actively enjoy it.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff