[Closed] Citizens Income

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

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.

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

not a lifelong state dependency.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, ****s 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.

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.

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

inevitable.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

made up numbers time!

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

Current benefits spend £217bn

discuss....

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.

welshfarmer said what i wanted to say but clearer!

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.

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......

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.

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).

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Savings come in mass redundancies.

There are a few misconceptions here. 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.

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

I hope it works - seems a good system to me.

Rachel

So no savings on admin then.

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

Oh, the ironing !!

[i]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? [/i]

Did you not read the original post? EVERYONE gets an income, just the amount is age-dependent.

The key thing here is to take away the 'politics' (see Stoner's comment) and consider the pros and cons. Will it be a better/worse system, no idea - but compared to the current mess it ought to be worth evaluating properly.

What though normally scuppers every good idea (as described to me when I once worked on a central Govt contract) is the 'transition', ie how we get from here to there.

To quote:

“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones. ”

Niccolò Machiavelli 1469-1527

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 ?