if I'm getting that for not working I'm sure as hell not working.
You'll get much more if you work though.
It would be interesting to see what percentage of people would actually not work at all if this happened.
Read up on inflation.
Interesting point. However - this might be slightly different. Suppliers of goods would still be subject to competition, and they could afford to cut prices further given that they themselves would be getting the wage too. So it might not quite work out the way classical inflation does. But IANAE.
Balance of power shifts from employers to employees. Shit poorly paid job, with bad managers? Just quit, you don't need another lined up straight away. Want a year off to travel the world? Just do it.
Do you not just end up in the position that company has to pay more for the job (and thus every other job up the 'ladder'). To cover that increase then price of the thing the company does (coffee, food, nappies etc.) has to go up. So your money just goes less far and back to square one?
molgrips - Member
I refer the gentkeman to my reply given previously.
Which one? The one including "piss off mate" ?
That suggests to me that you don't want to pay people who aren't working, yes?
Yes.
No.
Read up on inflation.
yep, it's about the only serious down side to this, so you'd have to introduce some anti inflationary measures alongside it if it was introduced, rent controls and so on.
Do you not just end up in the position that company has to pay more for the job (and thus every other job up the 'ladder'). To cover that increase then price of the thing the company does (coffee, food, nappies etc.) has to go up. So your money just goes less far and back to square one?
That's how I'd see it going, yes.
Yes.No.
Help me out...?
Do you not just end up in the position that company has to pay more for the job
Not necessarily.. employers don't just compete for staff on salary. I'd imagine a lot of people would be demanding more attractive terms for less money, because they could afford to. Four day weeks for instance. Or 6 hour days to match school hours. That'd be pretty popular imo.
so you'd have to introduce some anti inflationary measures alongside it if it was introduced, rent controls and so on.
Standard anti inflationary tool is higher interest rates. Maybe higher VAT too, add it to food as everyone is better off so can afford to pay.
Rent control would do little to control inflation as 68% people own their own home. I think I am correct in saying private rented (and this subject to rent control) is less than half rented housing stock in UK as most is council/housing association run.
molgrips - Member
Yes.
No.
Help me out...?
OK but there'd be a fee upfront.
Rent control would do little to control inflation
sure, it was just an example, like child care vouchers putting the prices of nursery care up overnight, UB would mean that the petite bourgeois landlords would have a motive to instantly put the rent up...
wasn't suggesting that rent control could control "inflation"... sorry, I don't think I was clear.
Ruth Smeeth received 20,000 pieces of abuse in 12 hours after the anti-senitism report launch incident. 20,000.
Yunki once again I am not stigmatising people who don't want to work. That's 100% their choice. I'd rather not work if I didn't have to.
£150 a week per adult is about [b]£320 billion[/b] a year ? 40 million adults ?
So it's better not to be petit bourgeois if you're going to be a landlord.
Thanks for the tip.
Just a quick thought but isn't this likley to make houses more expensive? Everyone will have more money, but the well off will get more of a gearing effect on their mortgage?
So it's better not to be petit bourgeois if you're going to be a landlord.
you are Dennis the constitutional peasant, and I claim my mud...
Just a quick thought but isn't this likley to make houses more expensive?
Perhaps. But a govt left enough to implement this ought to be building enough houses to take the pressure off the market anyway...
£150 a week per adult is about £320 billion a year ? 40 million adults ?
Christ, that's almost as much as the EU costs us 😆
same old stingy whingers getting their feathers all ruffled 🙄
[url= https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/9/1357739565544/Public-spending-on-Benefi-001.jp g" target="_blank">
https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/9/1357739565544/Public-spending-on-Benefi-001.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Click to make bigger.
£320bn a year is less than what we spend now on all benefits. Not sure which of those benefits would continue, but it's that outrageous a sum. Which is why it's being discussed.
So we cut all other benefits and just give everyone a lump sum? Irrelevant of their specific needs? That's, well, that's brave if nothing else.
£320 mil a year is more than we spend I think molgrips?
Dwp total spend £167 mil
Govt total spend £695 mil
Ah, the magic money tree remains alive and well on STW.....
Ironically for a policy being proposed by the Labour Party, the "Citizens' Wage" has an equal number of supporters on the right (the most obvious being Milton Friedman, hardly known for his left wing credentials).
At its heart is the aim both of simplifying the benefits system and eliminating the poverty trap, so that any earned income is retained rather than eroding benefits received.
It really isn't about making everyone richer (you can't do that just by paying people lots of money for reasons that are surely obvious) nor about redistributing wealth (that is perfectly possible within the current tax & benefits system; whether you think it is done too little or too much is personal opinion).
In principle it has many attractions (and I doubt there are too many other economic policies where I would potentially agree with John McDonnell). However for it to be effective (and have a broadly neutral fiscal impact), a number of significant problems need to be overcome.
The first, particularly for the left, is that it needs to be set at a level which is sufficiently low that it is both affordable and does not act as a disincentive to obtaining paid work. Figures I have seen are of the order of £3.5k per person excluding housing costs.
The second is housing costs (and possibly transport costs) which, as they vary so widely across the country, would need to be treated separately in some way. That simply re-introduces much of the complexity that was removed from scrapping the benefits system.
The third is that a Citizen's Wage implicitly assumes that everyone is capable of topping it up with paid employment (and if it is set so high as to make this unnecessary then it becomes too great a disincentive to paid work and too expensive). This is clearly not the case and so a vestigial benefits system would still be required, meaning you again end up back where you started.
So whilst in principle I have always supported the idea, which is by no means a new one, in practice I suspect the obstacles are just too great.
Neither brave nor radical enough to propose that - unfortunately they are going for a hybrid/fudge/bit of a muddle instead. In fact they specifically reject the idea of a fully-fledged universal income (sadly) - this is more of a top up.
It's a shame as their core point ie, our social security system is not fit-for-purpose, is perfectly valid. But like the NHS radical reform remains off the table.
Friedman may have agreed with some of the core concept but I doubt this would have extended to the Fabian's recommendations re "activist government, with economic intervention etc."
However for it to be effective (and have a broadly neutral fiscal impact), a number of significant problems need to be overcome.
Absolutely. I'm not into slogan spouting banner waving politics - this is quite a technical issue imo and needs major thought. The kind of thought which has been in short supply for the last ooh, I dunno.. decade or so...
So whilst in principle I have always supported the idea, which is by no means a new one, in practice I suspect the obstacles are just too great.
I think the obstacles are great, but I wouldn't bin the idea because of it. Just work towards it. JFK had the right idea when it came to challenges, if not the ultimate benefits 🙂
£320bn a year is less than what we spend now on all benefits. Not sure which of those benefits would continue, but it's that outrageous a sum. Which is why it's being discussed.
Out of interest, how does the £320bn pa compare to spending on corporate welfare (including allowances to low earners because employers don't pay their staff enough to live, thus the employer is subsidised as it can get away with paying its staff less). Also, how does it compare to tax evasion?
The first, particularly for the left, is that it needs to be set at a level which is sufficiently low that it is both affordable and does not act as a disincentive to obtaining paid work.
Not sure that's true. Everything I've read about it says it has to be set sufficiently high (at least much higher than current benefit levels) so that you don't then have to top it up with other benefits as otherwise there's no point. This means it'll inevitably be more than what is currently spent on benefits. I doubt people would give up work. Even if it was 10k a year that's still significantly lower than the national average wage.
Yes, yes, this is all well and good, but are we not dealing with the more pressing social issues raised by Jeremy today?
Is that a pint in your hand comrade?
[url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-slams-sexist-afterwork-pub-culture-for-being-unfair-on-mothers-a3335001.html ]SEXIST!!!!![/url]
😆
The first, particularly for the left, is that it needs to be set at a level which is sufficiently low that it is both affordable and does not act as a disincentive to obtaining paid work.
Why is that a problem for the left?
good, but are we not dealing with the more pressing social issues raised by Jeremy today?
Actually the discussion had become quite interesting again. Oh well 🙁
Not really - this is a topic with broad political appeal and the Fabians are more closely allied with those awful Blairy people - have a look at the recent publication lists.
The common theme for this thread is: take a good idea and butcher it. But correct it is an interesting idea (in its proper form)
Owen Smith 5/2 ...
May have a bet.
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/05/corbyn-investigating-claims-leadership-contest-is-being-rigged ]Anything in this then or just more lefty paranoia?[/url]
I'm surprised Binners hasn't already posted this already 🙂 It's quite ironic though that Corbyn's supporters are the ones accused of stalinist era tactics.
He must be very pleased to have received the support of UB20 😀
I'd forgotten all about him, anyway it is energy policy today. Anyone want to try and understand what the below statement means? It seems high on rhetoric and low on proper details, e.g. will they maintain the local electricity and gas infrastructure?
[i]That is why I am today announcing a bold new set of policies which will pioneer a democratic, community-led system of energy supply. Over the course of the next parliament, we will use public investment and legislation to promote the creation of over 200 local energy companies, giving towns, cities and localities the powers they need to drive a clean, locally accountable energy system with public, not-for-profit companies.[/i]
Full article is here: [url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2016/sep/07/why-labour-is-putting-energy-reform-at-heart-of-its-green-agenda-jeremy-corbyn ]Guardian[/url]
I've now come to the conclusion that the Labour party has just decided its going to jack in politics, as its crap at it, and become a surrealist performance art installation instead, with a view to winning the Turner Prize next year. And just to get the nomination in the bag, they may have jumped the shark with[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/06/jeremy-corbyn-ub40-dullest-music-qa-of-all-time-hits-bum-note ] this latest stunt[/url]...
[img] 
?w=748&h=471&crop=1[/img] 😯
Rubbish - he didnt get "holisitc" in
Still good to see that energy can be provided and invested in with "public, not-for-profit companies:
does his plan include community fracking?
probably means more of this type of project
which in itself isn't a bad thing but they are probably not the best model
Seems to sum Corbyns vision for the party up really - Red, red whine...
Edit: ps. I'm surprised Diane hasn't accused UB40 of cultural appropriation over their treatment of reggae music yet.
UB40 for Corbyn? You couldn't make it up, could you?
A once successful group who split acrimoniously followed by endless legal actions over the rights to the name. And then there's UB40 ...
Didn't think he'd share a platform with A Campbell?
Its actually worth having a look at [url= https://twitter.com/search?q=%23UB4Corbyn ]UB4Corbyn[/url] just for the Black Lace (more fingers on the pulse for the kids there) Tweet, as well as all the deluded Corbnistas saying how this is all apparently brilliant 😆
UB40 right back to the late 70's perfecf for JC really, Rock (?) against Thatcher tour I remember it well.
Didn't see PMQ's this week but I read Corbyn took another battering
#Funboythree4Vaz
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/cradle-of-filth-endorse-owen-smith-20160907113427 ]Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between satire and reality [/url]
