Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 111 total)
  • Citizens Income
  • geetee1972
    Free Member

    I’d be very interested to hear people’s view and insights on this idea. I’ve been very against it so far but I think that has more to do with it having been suggested by The Green Party, and their manifesto, having read it, while comebdable in some areas is communist in many others and it turned me off all their suggestions.

    But I part heard a debate about it on the radio yesterday and there were some credible arguments put forward, primarily around simplicty of administration (which would mean lower cost) and greater flexibility to allow people to get back into work.

    So what are the people’s thoughts and insights?

    cranberry
    Free Member

    If you are paying people not to work how does that encourage them to work and contribute to society ?

    Stoner
    Free Member

    It’s an unsurprising no from me.

    Raise the personal tax allowance. Merge income tax and NI, scrap employers NI on wages below that allowance. Take more people out of direct taxation altogether. And scrap tax credits too.

    Less state, not more. A state Safety net for the hard times not a lifelong state dependency.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    nickjb
    Free Member

    If you are paying people not to work how does that encourage them to work and contribute to society ?

    under the current system you will lose your benefits if you work so many people will earn the same or less if they get a job so they don’t bother. With a citizen income you’ll get it whatever so getting a job means extra money. People can also do volunteer work and still have an income. Its a great idea. Whether the numbers add up Is another matter but I’d like to see somewhere try it.

    nickjb
    Free Member

    not a lifelong state dependency.

    Pretty much everyone is dependent on the state. Those at the top get their money from those around them including those at the bottom. Its how a society works. All the bits of it are important to its and it’s member’s success.

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    If you are paying people not to work how does that encourage them to work and contribute to society ?

    So the arguments that were benefits are complex and costly to administer and the way they are calculated either puts people off taking lower paid jobs or part time work, particularly the latter because the lag in the system between the benefit stopping and starting makes it very difficult to come in and out of work.

    With a minimum income guarantee irrespective of your work status, you can afford to take any work knowing that when it finishes you’ll still have something to live on. If the minimum level of income high enough to just about survive but too low to thrive then that should, in theory, act as an incentive to work.

    That was the argument. I’m not saying it’s right. I’m saying I’m interested to learn more, especially around the areas I’ve not thought about.

    Stoner
    Free Member

    GT – what about other benefits (housing, council tax) do they stay intact or are you expected to make sensible decisions about where you can afford to live on your citizens income without further assistance ?

    darrenspink
    Free Member

    Taken from an article in the new statesmen. I believe it’s a good idea.

    What would you do with an extra £71 per week? That’s the question posed by The Citizen’s Income Trust, an organisation that promotes debate on the concept of a universal income for Britain, with citizenship as the only basis of entitlement.

    The Trust proposes a radical reform of the national welfare system, suggesting the annual spend on benefits should be distributed equally among all citizens, regardless of their income or employment status. Under their proposals, 0-24 year olds would receive £56.25 per week, 25-64 year olds would receive £71 per week and those 65 and over would receive £142.70 per week.

    Analysing figures from the 2012-13 financial year, the cost of such a scheme is projected at around £276bn per year – just £1bn more than the annual welfare budget that year –making the implementation of a citizen’s income close to revenue and cost neutral.

    Disability and housing benefits would remain intact, but the scheme would replace all other benefits including child benefits, income support and jobseeker’s allowance, national insurance and state pensions. Included in the current annual spend figures is £8bn in Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) administration and £2bn in HMRC tax credit administration and write-offs.

    A common objection to universal income is its potential to deter a population from working by creating a “money-for-nothing” culture. But in a 1970s pilot study called Mincome in Canada, establishing a citizen’s income didn’t produce a workshy population. In fact, the only people who stopped working or worked less were young mothers, teenagers in education and those due to retire soon.

    Taking the Trust’s figures, it also appears unlikely that £3,692 per year would dissuade people from working or replace income from employment. Rather, it would prevent the poorest sections of society falling into dependency on state welfare and being discouraged from entering paid employment for fear of losing benefit entitlements. This welfare trap would be eliminated; a citizen’s income would be paid, tax-free, regardless of an individual’s working status or income level.

    In this way, a citizen’s income has the potential to lead to a more equal and meritocratic society. Debates around reducing weekly working hours have been circulating for some time, and citizen’s income could aid this. For a person who currently works 40 hours per week at minimum wage, a £71 per week citizen’s income would facilitate a reduction of around 10 working hours.

    A citizen’s income also helps compensate for people’s non-financial contributions in a society and culture such as caring for children or elderly parents, undertaking voluntary work or pursuing hobbies and creative interests. Given the safety net of a small guaranteed income, there’s more room for career changes, education and enterprise projects too.

    With no need to prove entitlement in order to claim a citizen’s income, benefit fraud would be abolished and government bureaucracy reduced as the need for DWP administrators became significantly lower. No more invasive checks on an individual’s circumstances and no more stigmatisation of claimants; no need to spend money on chasing and punishing “benefit fraudsters”.

    The Swiss are due to vote in a referendum on citizen’s income this year, while here in the UK, Green party leader Natalie Bennett has announced the policy will feature prominently in her party’s 2015 election manifesto. With the potential to appease both the left and the right of the political spectrum, the citizen’s income concept could well mark the road to a fairer, more equal welfare system in Britain.

    macb
    Free Member

    Paying people not to work is a sweeping generalisation and, if you think about it, something we already do anyway. Strangely, when asked, people making these statements would never give up work to live on a CI. So, as usual, it’s just everyone else then?

    Set up correctly a CI would/could replace all other benefits barring those for disability purposes. Payable from birth to death, tax free and with a rate that varies according to age. It would remove everything else, including state pensions and tax free allowances.

    Any other income would be taxable and it would also be worth doing/having. No jumping through hoops for benefits, calculations about whether it was viable to accept a job, etc, etc. Think of it as giving dignity back to the individual.

    If the CI was set at a liveable subsistence level then it would make all work optional and therefore remove the stigma we attach to many types of work. Even though those types are often essential for the smooth running of a modern society.

    You could even think of it as a QE approach but with a trickle up, rather than trickle down, focus.

    cbike
    Free Member

    People get bored – they’ll educate themselves and end up working. The motivated will still work to suit.

    My ex does this. Disabled enough that a full time job would not be suitable but able to volunteer with a befriending scheme and a day a week at the OYT. Saves all her pennies and affords a big holiday every year.

    Every year she gets assessed but it’s a waste of time as Brain injury is for life.

    There is dutch city trying it this year I believe.

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    I think it’s a very interesting idea that we should really try to explore without it being politically tainted (or at least before that happens).

    What’s fascinating though is that you can see the left and the right hating it equally for the same reasons.

    The left will say that the income will not be enough to live on so people will fall into poverty anyway and the impact could well be to further depress wages (if people are more able to take low paid jobs, then you potentially increase demand for them).

    The right will say that you’re paying people not to work and that it’s too much state intervention.

    Really we should try to work out the numbers objectively first, then evaluate the economic arguments for persuasion/disuasion and then debate the politics.

    crankboy
    Free Member

    A very good idea the only flaw will be the level of insight on the part of the population required to get it through . It is no more expensive than the current system virtually fraud free and gives dignaty to the recipient. It should be UKipper friendly too as it is paid to citizens.

    pleaderwilliams
    Free Member

    A citizens income incentivises work.

    If you accept that you can’t drop unemployment benefits below a certain level, because otherwise people will start to starve (possibly not a concern shared by the current government), then you either have to raise the minimum wage or institute something like a citizens income in order to make work pay. Under the current system you can actually lose money if you take a part time job, and an extra £20 or £30 a week isn’t a great incentive to go from working 0 hours to working 40 hours. With a citizens income you would get to ‘keep’ all that you earned, so the link between hours worked and money earned is re-established.

    If you believe that people operate better with hope and ambition, than under desperation, then it makes sense.

    thestabiliser
    Free Member

    The scheme above sounds like the worst of both worlds TBH – if you’re going to do it you want to do it properly but in principal it sounds like a civilised idea to me. The London/SE housing costs, of course, **** it up for everyone – again – you’d need to weight that. Maybe phase it out/have an opt out at the top end of income as it would be largely irrelevant to people on higher wages, or even give them the opportunity to ‘invest’ it in a social enterprise fund. he best way would be give people just not quite enough to get by on then they’d be properly incentivised to work.

    As above – current system locks people in to worklessness though TBH I’d use it to skive a bit.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    By instinct I’m opposed to it, it smacks too much of state intervention and something for nothing. But the more I read up the more it seems practicable if it replaces everything except disability allowances.

    I think the lower threshold needs to be carefully thought through. How much/what do you need to survive on, so at what point does work incentive to kick in to go and get more? How do you account for stupid housing costs in the south east and other prime areas? Or do you let/force people to move to where they can afford? And, having worked in the benefits system, there is a minority who will think £50 a week per child is a license to print money, so perhaps only pay for the first two kids.

    It’s an idea worth having a conversation about. Maybe it could be better implemented by reforming the tax system as Stoner suggested. I don’t claim to have answers, only opinions.

    Stoner
    Free Member

    Or do you let/force people to move to where they can afford?

    inevitable.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    If you believe that people operate better with hope and ambition, than under desperation, then it makes sense.

    This. But I think it will take a generational shift to see attitudes change to fit the new system, and we don’t do long term visions in British politics.

    Trimix
    Free Member

    So basically a free amount of money not dependent on effort.

    Wont that just put the cost of living up so it no longer becomes enough to live on at a basic level ?

    Wont there be a constant pressure to keep putting it up so it pays for all your perceived needs ?

    Wont there be no one willing to do low paid jobs ?

    Wont that in itself push up wages for low paid jobs making them pay more than jobs that require more skill ?

    I’m not sure it will end up working as its intended.

    crankboy
    Free Member

    Trimix
    1 yes exactly as is paid to benefit claimants now but spread out.
    2 No as it is not putting any more cash into the system.
    3 no wages won’t be pushed up as CI is guaranteed and constant people will be able to ‘afford’ to take any wage or indeed no wage for work.

    v8ninety
    Full Member

    Basically, from what I understand, it wouldn’t make the blindest bit of difference to anyone who does not receive benefits of any kind, whilst being simpler, fairer and more cost effective for those that do. I’m all for it. Plus, tax reform is LONG overdue in this country; the present system is archaic and difficult (on purpose?) to understand just how much tax you pay.

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    I like it. You could get rid of 10s of thousands of civil servants freeing them up to do something useful.

    welshfarmer
    Full Member

    So a single person with 10 kids under 16 gets the same as everyone else but is unable to work, so can’t afford a house, can’t afford meds etc?
    Can see there will need to be top-ups or exceptions or special circumstances etc. So we end up just as complicated as it is now.

    TheBrick
    Free Member

    The post about it make it seem like a good idea and cost neutral. The problem I think arrises i nthe difference between theory and reality. I expect what would happen is that, as with any change some people would be worse off, maybe some of these people are the weakest in scoscity. A fix would be put in place for people in XYZ situation, then you are instantly back on the road to situation / means test / individual based benifits and all the hassel and expense needed to deal with that.

    matt_outandabout
    Full Member

    I think it could work, it will not be perfect, but what we have now is worse in my view.

    As important for me is a massive reduction in the complexity of our personal tax system – merge NI and income tax, employers contribution etc. Make the steps to income tax level, savings and pension contribution levels the same etc.

    thestabiliser
    Free Member

    made up numbers time!

    @ £100pw for everyone in UK (60m) £312bn

    Current benefits spend £217bn

    discuss….

    bencooper
    Free Member

    So a single person with 10 kids under 16 gets the same as everyone else but is unable to work, so can’t afford a house, can’t afford meds etc?

    Each of those 10 kids is also a citizen, however, so also gets their share.

    I like it. A much, much simpler system that reduces stress and heartache for everyone. Would it really encourage people to sit at home doing nothing all day? Would you do that for £71 per week? I wouldn’t.

    TheBrick
    Free Member

    welshfarmer said what i wanted to say but clearer!

    wilburt
    Free Member

    I like it but I liked it as a Green Party policy too.

    The present system is a trap that stops people developing and is really just a charade for all involved.

    The problem as with any logical but not intuative solution is you’ll need to overcome the gut reaction of Daily Mail readers of which there are many and your arguments will bounce off em.

    trail_rat
    Free Member

    having seen how hard it is for people with born disability – we have a family member who the powers that be seem determined to strip of all benifits and continually assess her for work.

    despite her being mid 50s , having been born with severe autism. Has been in full time care since ever and anyone whos spent more than 5 minutes with her would be able to know she would not be able to work.

    But constantly they are assessing her to get her fit for work…..

    70 quids not going to pay for her care……..so where do we draw the line between a disability and benifits ? is a gammy leg a disability because im sure we all know at least 1 of “those” guys……

    avdave2
    Full Member

    You could get rid of 10s of thousands of civil servants freeing them up to do something useful.

    I’ve been a civil servant, yes you could get rid of them. Getting them then to do anything useful… 🙂

    I first heard this idea in a sociology class in 1978, I rather liked the idea then and i still like it today. I’m not sure of all the pros and cons and whether it really is workable but it addresses the huge problem that the current benefit system doesn’t offer enough incentive for people to go into work if they will simply be losing out on benefits.
    From a philosophical point of view I also like the fact that it makes a statement that all citizens are equal.

    HoratioHufnagel
    Free Member

    I like it in theory, and would love to see it tried out somewhere.

    Maybe it won’t work, maybe it will, it’s difficult to predict the knock on effects for wages, supply/demand etc. Maybe wages for toilet cleaning etc.. would increase, but decrease for interesting skilled jobs (R&D type stuff). Or maybe will no longer need to get a job to do this stuff, and take ownership of the work themselves and do it at home (ok – this is what i would do anyway).

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    I can’t see how this can be both effective and cost neutral. If I understand it everyone, regardless of income, will receive the same payment so people like me (high earning and currently receiving no cash benefits) would get a bunch of cash from the government. This can logically only mean that some people who currently receive benefits would be worse off than the currently are.

    Pawsy_Bear
    Free Member

    I retired early, bring it on an extra £72 a week would be great!

    stopped working or worked less were young mothers, teenagers in education and those due to retire soon.

    Stoatsbrother
    Free Member

    It is an interesting idea.

    But shouldn’t we expect people have to jump through some sort of hoop, or be expected to show some disability or attempt to work before they get benefits?

    The current system for assessing disability is not always good, I see this frequently in my job. But I also see people totally disinclined to work and I do feel there should be some sort of moral hazard .

    ninfan
    Free Member

    maybe instead of “citizens income” we ought to call it “Zero hours contract subsidy”

    Like tax credits, all this will mean is that unscrupulous businesses will be able to pay lower wages, and employees will be scratching around to pick up a few part time hours here and there to top up their benefits.

    bencooper
    Free Member

    This can logically only mean that some people who currently receive benefits would be worse off than the currently are.

    Not necessarily. How much does it cost to administer the current very complex system? How much would it cost to just do every person in the country the same payment every week? The big admin savings go towards the extra payments, so it pretty much evens out (depending on what level the income is set at).

    geetee1972
    Free Member

    If I understand it everyone, regardless of income, will receive the same payment so people like me (high earning and currently receiving no cash benefits) would get a bunch of cash from the government.

    You’d obviously have to adjust the tax thresholds for higher incomes to make it neutral for them, i.e. take a little more back at the top end to compensate for more at the bottom end.

    ninfan
    Free Member

    How much would it cost to just do every person in the country the same payment every week? The big admin savings go towards the extra payments, so it pretty much evens out (depending on what level the income is set at).

    So a single adult male would receive the same leve of ‘citizen income’ as a single mum with three kids, despite their vastly different ability to work, outgoings and responsibilities? That hardly engenders a fair society does it?

    Someone who is disabled is expected to live on their ‘citizens income’ but everybody who has all the advantages of being physically able to choose to go out and work is able to enjoy a wildly different standard of living?

    Sounds like a recipe for a fractured and divided society.

    gonefishin
    Free Member

    You’d obviously have to adjust the tax thresholds for higher incomes to make it neutral for them, i.e. take a little more back at the top end to compensate for more at the bottom end.

    Doesn’t that rather defeat the point? If you are giving it to everyone then removing it from others, albeit via the tax system, then how is that different from just tapering off the benefit like currently happens? It amounts to the same thing just that the rate and threshold would be different. If what is actually wanted is to increase the tax take to provide increased benefits for others then that is what should be done rather than dressing it up as something that it’s not.

    Stoatsbrother
    Free Member

    Sadly, simple attractive solutions to complex difficult problems are almost invariably bad solutions.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 111 total)

The topic ‘Citizens Income’ is closed to new replies.