[Closed] Citizens Income

What? Even the kids? Surely they'd just go out and spend it on sweets?

@ b r - thanks, I see your point on the 'kids salary' but it raises just as many questions (someone with five kids versus someone with one kid, both being equally unable to work one could still end up vastly better off) and still leaves the wildly disparate equality gap between those working and unable to work.

someone with five kids versus someone with one kid, both being equally unable to work one could still end up vastly better off) and still leaves the wildly disparate equality gap between those working and unable to work.

One household will receive a larger combined CI, but they're also feeding and clothing more kids.

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?

We already have a CI for under-18s and a CI for over 68s, but we call them child benefit and state pension.

As I understand them, the systems being proposed include a top-up for the disabled and also kept housing benefit as a separate benefit.

It's a great idea, imo. And considering the cost is similar to the current welfare bill I can't really understand any objections to it.

If some people can live on 71 quid a week, more power to them.

But the positives out way any negatives, imo (are there any negatives?).

Only miserable bastards would object to this, unfortunately, there are loads of you. 🙁

It's something that would encourage entreprenuership, self education etc. These are massive positives for the enconomy in general, infact it's probably just the boost this shit**** of a system is needing, plus it'll take away stigma at the lower levels of society.

Sounds like a recipe for a fractured and divided society.

surely it unites as the income is for all so there is no strivers vs scroungers divide.

interesting to see how it would affect strikes and striking.

both being equally unable to work

Ironically it's this kind of example that shows the real benefits of the system.

A single parent (please can we not bring gender into it; there are single fathers as well you know) is hamstrung by the benefit system. They can't afford the time to take a full time job and they can't afford the money to take a part time one.

Although this is the part I am unclear on (because I don't know what or how much benefit a single parent gets or under what circumstances they lose it), the argument is that the CI would make it much easier for that single parent to take a part time job. Whether that job tops up the CI or the other way around isn't the point; the point is that it becomes financially viable to do it and practical from a time perspective.

surely it unites as the income is for all so there is no strivers vs scroungers divide.

A. Lives on £71 per week JSA
B. Lives on £250 per week wages working part time, minus £20 tax and NI
C. Lives on £500 per week wages working full time, minus £100 tax and NI

Citizens income:
A. Lives on £71 per week C.I
B lives on £321 per week (minus?)
C. Lives on £571 per week (minus?)

A. Lives on £71 per week JSA
B. Lives on £250 per week wages working part time, minus £20 tax and NI
C. Lives on £500 per week wages working full time, minus £100 tax and NI

Citizens income:
A. Lives on £71 per week C.I
B lives on £321 per week (minus?)
C. Lives on £571 per week (minus?)

A has the option of a short-term paid part-time work. Under which system is this worth their while?

Under which system is it possible for C to reduce her full-time hours to 0.8, giving them a day to pursue their interest in starting a business?

I don't see where the cost saving is comming from given you will still have to means test to sort out all the exceptions and diffrent cases of people who will still need extra beanfits. Seems like it would be very simalar to our current system

The only advantage I see, and it is a bing one is that it amkes working more rewarding at the lower income level as you don't end up working 40hours for 20 pounds more. The same could be achived with better tapering of tax levels and benafits levels rather than the steps we curently have that.

A has the option of a short-term paid part-time work. Under which system is this worth their while?

Do they? That's presumptive. What if there aren't any jobs? Haven't you just proved my point that this is just a subsidy for zero hour contract employers? As for 'worth their while' - that's just an issue of taper rates.

Under which system is it possible for C to reduce her full-time hours to 0.8

Both surely?

ninfan - Member
A has the option of a short-term paid part-time work. Under which system is this worth their while?
Do they? That's presumptive. What if there aren't any jobs? Haven't you just proved my point that this is just a subsidy for zero hour contract employers? As for 'worth their while' - that's just an issue of taper rates.

Under which system is it possible for C to reduce her full-time hours to 0.8
Both surely?

Utrect in The Netherlands is conducting a trial and the whole of Finland are planning to start one soon.

What? Even the kids? Surely they'd just go out and spend it on sweets?

slowoldman - Member
I imagine sensible parents would put it aside for future further education costs, though certainly many would splash out on more booze and drugs.

And many many more would use it to feed and cloth their children.

Personally I think it's a great idea. This is probably what people envisioned when the industrial revolution took place. More work becomes automated leaving us to do what we really wanted.

I don't understand why governments don't trial these measures in a limited capacity (e.g: pick a sample town/city and have a go at implementing it there).

I doubt it would put people already working off of working, and would provide a bit of breathing space for people in exploitative conditions, or under pressure to look after themselves/their families.

Also, to those saying child benefit and pensions already cover this are incorrect. Child benefit is means tested. Pensions I believe are linked to your contribution, and pensioners also have additional benefits like wig allowances, bus passes and fuel allowances. Using UBI would be a welcome reduction in administration overhead and may result in a fairer redistribution of this money.

ninfan - Member
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?

Have you bothered reading the rest of the thread, notably the bit about children being citizens and being given an income as well?

Tories relax! You don't HAVE to be against it!

Gosh,the misconceptions and strawmen are flowing thick and fast. There is a wealth of information on this concept going back decades. A good starting point would be:-

http://www.basicincome.org/

I do understand the enthusiasm to bash an idea that you haven't read or comprehended properly, it is the internet after all.

Regarding cost reduction then that's where I wouldn't agree with this specific proposal. The level of CI proposed is too low to provide a liveable alternative. I think it needs to be more like £12k per annum for a working age adult at 25 and over. But I would want that to include the removal of housing benefit. If it's not enough to live where you want then you either work or you move.

To cost it you need to add up everything that's currently paid or given as an allowance - tax credits, family allowance(or whatever it's called now), income support, job seekers, housing benefit, state pensions, tax free allowances.

The only exception would be those with a special need that was not covered by the £12k.

Any and all other forms of income would be taxable, no allowances and no exceptions.

Most objections to this really just boil down to the same thing, free money and the idea that someone doesn't have to do anything, or humiliate themselves in any way to qualify. We already give out free money we just don't call it that and pretend it's something else.

Unless we have some magic plan for full employment then the continual humiliation of those not working seems rather sad to me. Our current headline unemployment number is 1.8million but we also have over 8million on part time out of a workforce of 31 million. The vast majority of existing benefits are paid to those in work or retired.

It's a behemoth of a system that could be swept away it just takes the imagination.

The Citizens Income would be a fixed amount paid to everyone, equal to that which allows a person, without special circumstances, to live.

Special circumstances may include disabilities, care for dependencies (like children) etc. Those things will still need to be assessed and paid.

Surely that pretty much what we have now - everyone (admittedly unemployed only) gets JSA, and if you need additional disability benefit it gets assessed?

Its feels like a good idea, I just suspect the 'special circumstances' would just add up to the same complicated system we have now. Whilst I agree the current assessment system for disabilities is pretty ridiculous, if it wasn't there whats to stop everyone just claiming it?

And considering the cost is similar to the current welfare bill I can't really understand any objections to it.

We won't know this until it is rolled out. Think of all the costings touted by previous political parties and the actual reality.

Also there it is going to be very expensive to implement. Because it won't be simple, no matter how much people want it to be. UC is supposed to be a simplification of the old system but it isn't.

Most objections to this really just boil down to the same thing, free money

But interestingly it's an objection to free money from both the left and the right.

You could be in the top 0.1% of wealth holders and still receive it. So the right throws it's arms up because of the scroungers and the left because of the fat cats.

Alternatively, the left applauds it because it's inclusive and helps the poorest more and the right because potentially it creates a much more willing and able workforce more willing to take on part time work which in turn act to reduce wage costs.

"the left applauds it because it's inclusive and helps the poorest more and the right because potentially it creates a much more willing and able workforce more willing to take on part time work which in turn act to reduce wage costs."

I like this aspect however i see housing/cars/other Demand driven priced items being inflated because people have more income to leverage in their pockets.... will anyone be any better off or is it just a readjustment of the axis 0 point where things are measured.

Tread carefully.

I think it needs to be more like £12k per annum for a working age adult at 25 and over.

24k between wife and I. We could both give up work tomorrow. Bliss.

curiousyellow - Member

I don't understand why governments don't trial these measures in a limited capacity (e.g: pick a sample town/city and have a go at implementing it there).

The Netherlands.

£12k would surely be a bit much, unless you altered the tax system to be more like 50% of everything.

Otherwise as Ahwile said, no one north of Leeds would go to work in the morning as 2x£12k would probably pay most mortgages.

A more sensible option would be to scrap the tax free allowance and replace it with an equivalent grant for ~£4k?

The only problem is I suspect that the more you tax low incomes the more that work becomes informal and no tax get's paid. Because unlike Starbucks or Vodafone where settling for £Xmillion is worthwhile for HMRC, chasing after Dave from the Dog and Duck for 20% of his earnings from selling car-boot stuff on eBay isn't.

will anyone be any better off or is it just a readjustment of the axis 0 point where things are measured

Hopefully those at the bottom end of the income spectrum, otherwise it's pointless debating it. If the poorest do better then the rich will by default also do better. Whereas if the rich do better, then maybe that helps the poorest, but it's not quite as clear cut (because there's more leakage at the top end).

will anyone be any better off or is it just a readjustment of the axis 0 point where things are measured.

Tread carefully.

It would need to be like to some for of inflation index, or that is exactly what would happen. It would be easy to work around the vulture capitalists, if the will was there. tbh that's the only concern I'd have about it, how it was actually implemented.

24k between wife and I. We could both give up work tomorrow

Herein lies the biggest problem as I see it - you actually have to set the base level pretty low, to the point that it becomes close to poverty, or you have a stonking high tax rate that will discourage many to make the effort to work.

You'd have to be very careful what is defined as "necessary" or "the states responsibility" for non-disabled people of working age. Essentially, reduce it not living on the street, 3 nutritious meals a day, clothing and access to education and medical attention. Or have I just re-invented the workhouse? 😳

£12k would surely be a bit much, unless you altered the tax system to be more like 50% of everything.

The Green Party were proposing £80 a week or £4160 year. I think the suggestion of £12k included housing benefit. The Green Party was proposing to keep housing separate, which makes sense given the enormous discrepancies in cost you have around the country.

But all that was solved by Friedmans negative income tax proposal, that was far more equitable, progressive and easier to administer, and retained incentive.

(The difference between CI and NIT being the structure and use of withdrawal rates)

I personally don't think it would work in the UK.

I like the concept, it a bit like a far less complex version of Tax Credits, everyone gets a lump of money out of taxation, a minimum income - so we do away with Pensions, Sick Pay, Child Benefit, Housing Benefit, JSA so if you can't work, a basic, but real lifestyle is yours (I understand their are certain payments for chronically disabled people so they aren't penalised because they cannot work).

Where is would go wrong is that for the hardcore 'underclass' who have no intention of working we'd be simply giving them more, for the lowest earners working full time to have it taxed at 45% would mean the jump in lifestyle between not working and working wouldn't be great enough to give up the lifestyle jump in simply having the time to enjoy life and higher earners will just find new ways not to pay the tax and the whole thing would cripple us.

and before we know it we have re invented the poor house and are being fed soylent green..... are we using make room make room as an instruction manual ?

One of the few issues that can unite across the RW v LW and authoritarian v libertarian divide but this one - albeit for different motives 😉

Good idea

Simple and transparent
Treats people adults rather than kids of the state
Cash - not benefits in kind
Less disincentive to work
Reduce poverty(perhaps)

Not such a good idea

Conflicts between objectives of simplicity, cost and disincentives
Universal basic income simple BUT potentially more costly than current system
Negative incomes is less costly BUT complex dis-incentivises work
Supplements hardly improve on current system
Etc, etc

So interesting idea with plenty of case studies but not the slam dunk that many suggest

that’s the whole point, P-Jay - any amount of paid work will return an improvement in lifestyle. Under the current systems, that’s not the case.

Rachel

The Green Party were proposing £80 a week or £4160 year. I think the suggestion of £12k included housing benefit. The Green Party was proposing to keep housing separate, which makes sense given the enormous discrepancies in cost you have around the country.

I'm liking the theory more and more. Speaking as one of those "soon to not be needed" civil servants, unless I move across to do the retained disability benefits.

Herein lies the biggest problem as I see it - you actually have to set the base level pretty low, to the point that it becomes close to poverty, or you have a stonking high tax rate that will discourage many to make the effort to work.

This.

The fundamental problem is for most people work is unpleasant. In fact it's so bad you have to be financially compensated to do it. If you pay non-workers it has to be at a level where their lifestyle is worse than getting up at 6am 5 days a week, commuting and grafting at least 38 hours with 4-5 weeks leave. Plus the stress and responsibility. (And the health consequences of sitting at a desk all the time or the risk of working with machinery etc.)

I question if even £71 is low enough to avoid shirking. Some couples with paid off mortgage and a bit of ingenuity could manage on £142 a week and have a better lifestyle than they did on 80k pa between them. (I heard a couple on the radio who cycled around the world on a budget of 9k a year which I make to be £75 pw each.)

allthegear - Member
that’s the whole point, P-Jay - any amount of paid work will return an improvement in lifestyle. Under the current systems, that’s not the case.

The difference being at the moment some people (those with few outgoings paid by the state, the young living with parents for example) get back almost every penny of their minimum wage when they get a job. Under the proposed CI system they'd get their CI and then get taxed a lot more on their wage.

The question is, is that a big enough group to matter? And would it grow if the system was changed to favor them?

I say no.

raise the basic rate of tax so it is more attractive to work.

change corporate tax levels so companies can afford to pay the living wage

therefore remove tax credits and simplify the welfare state

force corporations to pay the appropriate levels of tax

only support people that actually need it on the welfare state - such as disabled or permanently ill. Only support able-bodied people for the time needed for them 'to get back on their feet'

remove/reduce child benefit if you can't afford kids then don't have them.

fine people using A&E for non-emergencies

people can only be in the national health scheme if they make some effort, acknowledged by their GP, to look after their health.

Herein lies the biggest problem as I see it - you actually have to set the base level pretty low, to the point that it becomes close to poverty, or you have a stonking high tax rate that will discourage many to make the effort to work.

And this is the devil in the detail and the part where my understanding runs out, hence asking the views here.

force corporations to pay the appropriate levels of tax

I'm going to chomp right down on that bit of bait.

If a company does not pay the tax its due it's called tax evasion and being illegal that company would then face charges in court.

All companies pay the tax that's due. The problem, where there is one, is that the tax that's due is not as much as you would like. But that's not the company's doing. It's not even the UK government's doing. It's internatinal Tax law and the rates at which each soverign state decides to set its corporation tax rate at.

Companys will pay taxes where its cheapest and where the law allows (indeed they are required to act in this way by law).

1) I bet the proposed efficiencies never materialise.

2) If the total benefits pot is staying the same, then surely to give middle and high earners their £70 odd quid the lower brackets will lose out?

3) There are always unintended consequences e.g. it could result in a higher divide between lower and middle class as it could lead to inflation on demand led items like cars and houses (as Trail-rat previously alluded to).

My 2 cents. Attractive sounding idea which does not make sense financially , people paid something for nothing and tye same for every man,mwoman and child ? Not means tested ? All bad.

Standard family of husband, wife and 2-3 kids I think there would be many who'd give up and/or take sabaticals for a year or two or longer. Have some more kids and get a council house, work cash in hand on the side ? Yup sounds great doesn't it, in fact far too attractive based on the numbers above.